Not answering the damn question. March 13, 2006 11:46 AM Subscribe
Another example of folks not answering the damn question.
On yet another read, no response so far has answered the question.
posted by aberrant at 11:50 AM on March 13, 2006
posted by aberrant at 11:50 AM on March 13, 2006
Well, availablelight's link does have 3 lines that semi-answer the question. "Pakistan has no law against the buying and selling of such tissue. Some institutions even advertise on the Internet with promises they will find a donor. Sources told us that donors are often recruited by newspaper ads like this."
posted by mischief at 11:55 AM on March 13, 2006
posted by mischief at 11:55 AM on March 13, 2006
Yeah, availablelight gets a semi-pass. Can't we just leave the ethics out of this, as it has no relevance to the actual question which is whether seeking a transplant abroad is illegal?
It's getting so that posters have to specifically mention topics that they DON'T want to discuss , which adds unnecessary dialog to the discussion at hand.
posted by aberrant at 12:01 PM on March 13, 2006
It's getting so that posters have to specifically mention topics that they DON'T want to discuss , which adds unnecessary dialog to the discussion at hand.
posted by aberrant at 12:01 PM on March 13, 2006
Why moralize? Wouldn't we all take a kidney from a brown person if we needed one? Wouldn't we all press a button to get one million dollars, even if it meant that 10,000 brown foreigners died?
Plenty of people work for Halliburton.
posted by orthogonality at 12:05 PM on March 13, 2006
Plenty of people work for Halliburton.
posted by orthogonality at 12:05 PM on March 13, 2006
Orthogonality, The ethical issue is not as cut and dried as you and the other posters make it out to be. See Brecher and Buttle's debate (via PubMed, if you have a subscription.
The poster didn't ask about the ethical implications. That does not mean we should assume s/he has not considered them, and it does not mean we should provide our unsolicited opinion on the matter. AskMe is for answers, not for judgements or opinion (unless that's been specifically asked).
posted by aberrant at 12:11 PM on March 13, 2006
The poster didn't ask about the ethical implications. That does not mean we should assume s/he has not considered them, and it does not mean we should provide our unsolicited opinion on the matter. AskMe is for answers, not for judgements or opinion (unless that's been specifically asked).
posted by aberrant at 12:11 PM on March 13, 2006
I'll direct follow-ups on the ethics issue in general to this thread and I removed the link to the made-up VICELAND story but left the rest there. This is another good example of a question where there is a specific answer the poster is looking for, but a lot of related general answers that people offer, or opinions on the subject itself.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:11 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:11 PM on March 13, 2006
Sorry, I wasn't able to find any about.com-type page about harvesting organs abroad in oppressive/impovrished regimes that answers the question in an informative yet non-judgemental fashion. I can link you to plenty of newspaper articles, congressional reports, etc. which confirm that it happens and it's not proscecuted, but also offer a helping of good old fashioned, non-relativist, "it's wrong as fuck." My bad. Maybe someone should compile this kind of non-judgemental, how-to resource?
posted by availablelight at 12:14 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by availablelight at 12:14 PM on March 13, 2006
It's not like everyone would do unethical things but that's not the point.
Moralising on a website where people can post anonymously only makes you seem wanting to be morally superior to everybody else on the site. The original anonymous poster will not care for anything else than the answer. The owner has allowed the question. The people who will be caring about your moralising comments are your fellow users and you seem to want to be on the moral high ground to anybody else. Different in the blue but this is on AskMe where you should be giving answers.
posted by keijo at 12:15 PM on March 13, 2006
Moralising on a website where people can post anonymously only makes you seem wanting to be morally superior to everybody else on the site. The original anonymous poster will not care for anything else than the answer. The owner has allowed the question. The people who will be caring about your moralising comments are your fellow users and you seem to want to be on the moral high ground to anybody else. Different in the blue but this is on AskMe where you should be giving answers.
posted by keijo at 12:15 PM on March 13, 2006
While I see your point, Aberrant, it's hard not to inject some conversational aspects into practically any topic, especially about certain hot-button issues. It's human nature. We're not robots, after all.
posted by crunchland at 12:15 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by crunchland at 12:15 PM on March 13, 2006
Availablelight, I just provided evidence that the position opposite yours is held by others, including those in the medical establishment. Your opinion is just that - an opinion. You did answer the question, which was why I wasn't explicitly objecting to your response. The first two responses were useless.
posted by aberrant at 12:17 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by aberrant at 12:17 PM on March 13, 2006
In general, I'm certainly in favor of keeping on topic. But you can't expect people to not say anything when you ask a question like this. We're not talking about spitting on the sidewalk. We're talking about taking a poor person's internal organs, possibly without their permission. Seriously, regardless of legality, doing this has major moral problems. It's simply not reasonable to assume that people won't have a problem with this, and say so.
posted by unreason at 12:18 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by unreason at 12:18 PM on March 13, 2006
I understand your point aberrant, personally I am inclined to think mentioning of the possible ethics surrounding this issue is worthwhile as there are serious implications. Perhaps especially because the questioner is annon. and there can be no dialog/clarifications unless they break anonymity.
posted by edgeways at 12:18 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by edgeways at 12:18 PM on March 13, 2006
Crunchland: I agree, but we should TRY to refrain when we can, and be open to feedback when we can't.
posted by aberrant at 12:20 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by aberrant at 12:20 PM on March 13, 2006
I wonder how many of the people moralizing have ever driven/ridden a vehicle fueled with Nigerian oil or worn clothes made in sweat shops or vacationed in developing nations? I wonder how many have smoked a joint that's contents came from Mexico or snorted a little blow from Colombia. I'm not saying this poster is above ethics here, but what's that catchy phrase about casting the first stone in glass houses?
posted by Pollomacho at 12:21 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by Pollomacho at 12:21 PM on March 13, 2006
unreason: see, I think it's PERFECTLY reasonable for people to keep silent if all they can offer is moralizing. It's not a black-and-white issue - there are folks who WANT to sell one of their kidneys because they want/need the money, and there are people who want/need one. The debate as to whether it makes sense for a free market to prevail (assuming voluntary participation - as much as financial need is voluntary, but that's a completely different argument - for all parties can be assured) is one that's still ongoing, and we're not going to solve it in AskMe.
posted by aberrant at 12:24 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by aberrant at 12:24 PM on March 13, 2006
When I went to Mexico to get my monkey glands, nobody pointed out the ethical issues, and now I must live forever with the knowlege that some monkey is spunkless because of me.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:29 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:29 PM on March 13, 2006
And while it's true that this particular person may have considered all the moral and ethical aspects of his question, you have to know that AskMe is not about a community coming to the need of a single person. Ideally, it should be a repository of information for anyone searching for answers in the future, too. And provided the people who reply are giving helpful information in that regard, a little editorializing is not completely wasted.
posted by crunchland at 12:30 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by crunchland at 12:30 PM on March 13, 2006
crunchland: I disagree that the moralizing answers any aspect of the poster's question. If we're going to answer questions that haven't been asked, why can't I talk about my shiny new time machine in that thread? I mean, someone in the future might be looking for a way to get a kidney, and then they can use my device to go back in time to get their family member's name on a waiting list in time to get one just as the diagnosis is being made?
posted by aberrant at 12:38 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by aberrant at 12:38 PM on March 13, 2006
If anon had given any indication that they were aware of the moral issues, I would not have posted my comment (which was the first comment and the only comment for the next 40 minutes).
It's true, I was not directly answering their question. I generally try to observe that guideline. In this case I decided to post what I considered a clarifying comment. I did not flame anon. I did not suggest that what they were looking for was impossible, or did not exist. I was just suggesting that they tighten their criteria to rule out things like systematic state-sponsored murder as a source of organs.
I could have instead flagged the post for deletion or I could have started up a Meta thread arguing that the post should be deleted or modified. I didn't think either of those courses would be more helpful to the questioner, who is clearly suffering and looking for answers.
With those caveats, if Jesamyn or Matt thinks my comment was a derail, I have no objection to their deleting it.
posted by alms at 12:40 PM on March 13, 2006
It's true, I was not directly answering their question. I generally try to observe that guideline. In this case I decided to post what I considered a clarifying comment. I did not flame anon. I did not suggest that what they were looking for was impossible, or did not exist. I was just suggesting that they tighten their criteria to rule out things like systematic state-sponsored murder as a source of organs.
I could have instead flagged the post for deletion or I could have started up a Meta thread arguing that the post should be deleted or modified. I didn't think either of those courses would be more helpful to the questioner, who is clearly suffering and looking for answers.
With those caveats, if Jesamyn or Matt thinks my comment was a derail, I have no objection to their deleting it.
posted by alms at 12:40 PM on March 13, 2006
And availablelight, it appears your answer was, in fact, incorrect. Truthfully, now, were you just making up an answer to the specific question in order to clear a place for your soapbox?
posted by aberrant at 12:42 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by aberrant at 12:42 PM on March 13, 2006
Alms, it would perhaps have been better if you had flagged the post and/or made a callout. At least then we could have the same discussion we're having now without crapping in the original question thread.
posted by aberrant at 12:44 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by aberrant at 12:44 PM on March 13, 2006
speaking of soapboxes...
posted by crunchland at 12:45 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by crunchland at 12:45 PM on March 13, 2006
crunchland, if you're referring to me, note that I'm not doing it in an inappropriate forum. Jeez.
posted by aberrant at 12:46 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by aberrant at 12:46 PM on March 13, 2006
I would like to object to putting the MeTa link in the original askme thread.
I'm serious. I think aberrant is right, but I also think that ALL non-answer related correspondence should be left out of the thread. if you desperately want people to know their answer isn't okay, use email or leave it to the admins to handle after you make the meta callout. the last thing we need is people arguing in the askme thread about whether the callout was merited once they see the MeTa link.
posted by shmegegge at 12:47 PM on March 13, 2006
I'm serious. I think aberrant is right, but I also think that ALL non-answer related correspondence should be left out of the thread. if you desperately want people to know their answer isn't okay, use email or leave it to the admins to handle after you make the meta callout. the last thing we need is people arguing in the askme thread about whether the callout was merited once they see the MeTa link.
posted by shmegegge at 12:47 PM on March 13, 2006
aberrant, I think crunchland thinks you're gonig a little overboard, here. (sorry if I'm mistaking your intention, crunch.) You're kind of obsessively responding, and you may want to walk away from the thread for an hour or so and come back and give a general response to all detractors instead of posting a thousand littler responses.
posted by shmegegge at 12:50 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 12:50 PM on March 13, 2006
Aberrant, I don't consider what I did "crapping in the original question thread." I was only encouraging anon to consider the type of information that you posted here in your pubmed link (but did not, interestingly enough, post in the original thread).
For the record, your response in the original thread (about it being illegal in Pakistan and India) is also technically not an answer to the original question, which was about legal options, not illegal ones.
posted by alms at 12:50 PM on March 13, 2006
For the record, your response in the original thread (about it being illegal in Pakistan and India) is also technically not an answer to the original question, which was about legal options, not illegal ones.
posted by alms at 12:50 PM on March 13, 2006
shmegegge: you're 100% correct. I was debating whether or not to advertise the callout in that thread, and I opted to do it because I had seen it done in the blue (this is my first callout for something in the green, I think). It was probably a mistake, and I'm OK with the admins deleting it.
posted by aberrant at 12:51 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by aberrant at 12:51 PM on March 13, 2006
Is there some site on the internet where I can apply to harvest the soul of an impoverished foreigner? Is it legal? Please don't bother with the ethics involved - I sold my soul years ago, so your moralizing will only fall on deaf ears. Speaking of deaf ears...
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:57 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:57 PM on March 13, 2006
Why moralize? Wouldn't we all take a kidney from a brown person if we needed one? Wouldn't we all press a button to get one million dollars, even if it meant that 10,000 brown foreigners died?
Plenty of people work for Halliburton.
posted by orthogonality at 3:05 PM EST on March 13 [!]
Flagged as "fantastic post/comment."
posted by caddis at 1:02 PM on March 13, 2006
Plenty of people work for Halliburton.
posted by orthogonality at 3:05 PM EST on March 13 [!]
Flagged as "fantastic post/comment."
posted by caddis at 1:02 PM on March 13, 2006
I would like to object to putting the MeTa link in the original askme thread.
This is a pretty standard tactic actually. It keeps people who want to just bitch about the topic from bitching in-thread, knowing there is a place to go do that. If there's no editorializing around it, I usually think it's an okay thing to do.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:05 PM on March 13, 2006
This is a pretty standard tactic actually. It keeps people who want to just bitch about the topic from bitching in-thread, knowing there is a place to go do that. If there's no editorializing around it, I usually think it's an okay thing to do.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:05 PM on March 13, 2006
Last comment for several hours (taking schmegegge's advice but I'm tied up all afternoon) - specifically in response to It's Raining Florence Henderson's question:
yes.
posted by aberrant at 1:05 PM on March 13, 2006
yes.
posted by aberrant at 1:05 PM on March 13, 2006
Alms, it would perhaps have been better if you had flagged the post and/or made a callout. At least then we could have the same discussion we're having now without crapping in the original question thread.
What is this, a Middle Falls Junior High School Student Council meeting? Do I need to follow parliamentary procedure if I need a potty break? alms' comment was relevant, even if it didn't earn a gold star from you, aberrant. It sounds like you misread alms' stance--to me, it seemed more of a request for clarification than anything approaching admonishment. But hey, maybe I'll start my own MeTa thread on that later.
posted by deadfather at 1:09 PM on March 13, 2006
What is this, a Middle Falls Junior High School Student Council meeting? Do I need to follow parliamentary procedure if I need a potty break? alms' comment was relevant, even if it didn't earn a gold star from you, aberrant. It sounds like you misread alms' stance--to me, it seemed more of a request for clarification than anything approaching admonishment. But hey, maybe I'll start my own MeTa thread on that later.
posted by deadfather at 1:09 PM on March 13, 2006
And availablelight, it appears your answer was, in fact, incorrect. Truthfully, now, were you just making up an answer to the specific question in order to clear a place for your soapbox?
posted by aberrant at 3:42 PM EST on March 13 [!]
Are you unsane or what? Did I make up what was one of dozens of google/google news hits on harvesting organs abroad "to clear a place for [my soapbox]?" The article verifed the fact that, at least in the past (*cough*), hundreds of Americanski's have had this done. There are congressional reports on the organ trade in India that verify the same. This answers the original question, no?
By the way, if you think "illegal" in a place like India or Pakistan (or, more accurately, "soon to be illegal on paper at least" in Pakistan) means "never happens" or "you'll definitely get caught"....
I'm stepping away from the keyboard now, and I suggest you do the same.
posted by availablelight at 1:12 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by aberrant at 3:42 PM EST on March 13 [!]
Are you unsane or what? Did I make up what was one of dozens of google/google news hits on harvesting organs abroad "to clear a place for [my soapbox]?" The article verifed the fact that, at least in the past (*cough*), hundreds of Americanski's have had this done. There are congressional reports on the organ trade in India that verify the same. This answers the original question, no?
By the way, if you think "illegal" in a place like India or Pakistan (or, more accurately, "soon to be illegal on paper at least" in Pakistan) means "never happens" or "you'll definitely get caught"....
I'm stepping away from the keyboard now, and I suggest you do the same.
posted by availablelight at 1:12 PM on March 13, 2006
Dear Metafilter,
I would like to catch, kill, and hopefully eat a human child. Preferably between the ages of four and six. Should I be looking at catching one near a school, or am I better off just buying one?
Please don't waste my time with your silly ethical concerns, after all, AskMe is only for answering questions. I look forward to amoral scum defending my culinary predilections.
Love and Hugs,
Hungry in Hoboken
P.S. No need to be outraged, I promise I'll only eat a brown kid.
posted by atrazine at 1:32 PM on March 13, 2006
I would like to catch, kill, and hopefully eat a human child. Preferably between the ages of four and six. Should I be looking at catching one near a school, or am I better off just buying one?
Please don't waste my time with your silly ethical concerns, after all, AskMe is only for answering questions. I look forward to amoral scum defending my culinary predilections.
Love and Hugs,
Hungry in Hoboken
P.S. No need to be outraged, I promise I'll only eat a brown kid.
posted by atrazine at 1:32 PM on March 13, 2006
It sounds like you misread alms' stance--to me, it seemed more of a request for clarification than anything approaching admonishment.
Except anon posters can't followup.
posted by delmoi at 1:34 PM on March 13, 2006
Except anon posters can't followup.
posted by delmoi at 1:34 PM on March 13, 2006
Could you people shut up about "brown" people? Organs are also harvested from poor, eastern european countries.
posted by delmoi at 1:35 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by delmoi at 1:35 PM on March 13, 2006
Dear Metafilter,
I would like to catch, kill, and hopefully eat a human child. Preferably between the ages of four and six. Should I be looking at catching one near a school, or am I better off just buying one?
Please don't waste my time with your silly ethical concerns, after all, AskMe is only for answering questions. I look forward to amoral scum defending my culinary predilections.
Love and Hugs,
Hungry in Hoboken
P.S. No need to be outraged, I promise I'll only eat a brown kid.
posted by atrazine at 4:32 PM EST on March 13 [!]
OK, I said I was stepping away, but.....I found a google link which suggests you might consider eating an Irish kid instead.....
posted by availablelight at 1:37 PM on March 13, 2006
I would like to catch, kill, and hopefully eat a human child. Preferably between the ages of four and six. Should I be looking at catching one near a school, or am I better off just buying one?
Please don't waste my time with your silly ethical concerns, after all, AskMe is only for answering questions. I look forward to amoral scum defending my culinary predilections.
Love and Hugs,
Hungry in Hoboken
P.S. No need to be outraged, I promise I'll only eat a brown kid.
posted by atrazine at 4:32 PM EST on March 13 [!]
OK, I said I was stepping away, but.....I found a google link which suggests you might consider eating an Irish kid instead.....
posted by availablelight at 1:37 PM on March 13, 2006
Yes, organ transplant is exactly the same thing as canaballism.
Unless you do it through the western medical system, and everyone involved except the donor gets paid...
posted by delmoi at 1:39 PM on March 13, 2006
Unless you do it through the western medical system, and everyone involved except the donor gets paid...
posted by delmoi at 1:39 PM on March 13, 2006
Except anon posters can't followup.
Kind of my point--that's why I cut alms a little slack for the stated "question."
posted by deadfather at 1:43 PM on March 13, 2006
Kind of my point--that's why I cut alms a little slack for the stated "question."
posted by deadfather at 1:43 PM on March 13, 2006
For the record, I don't think Anon deserves to get trashed for making their request. They have a relative who is going to die, fer chrissake. And unlike our baby toddler eater, anon didn't say that they didn't care about the moral issues, it was abberant who said that.
posted by alms at 1:43 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by alms at 1:43 PM on March 13, 2006
Yeah, well. Some people have had relatives die because they couldn't get an organ transplant. Some people's relative could easily have afforded this kind of thing and definitely knew of its existence. But Some people's (now dead) relative didn't even consider it, because its evil.
I sympathise with anon, and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. That's why I refrained from posting in the AskMe thread. But after wording the question like that, what did they expect?
posted by atrazine at 1:51 PM on March 13, 2006
I sympathise with anon, and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. That's why I refrained from posting in the AskMe thread. But after wording the question like that, what did they expect?
posted by atrazine at 1:51 PM on March 13, 2006
Frankly, I dont understand why the question is allowed, given that organ traficking is illegal. I think an earlier question, asking about how to obtain Vicodin, was removed on just those grounds, no?
posted by vacapinta at 1:57 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by vacapinta at 1:57 PM on March 13, 2006
OK, at this point I think the AskMe question should be taken down. There's nothing productive going on in there and its just going to bring the asker grief and set a bad example for what an AskMe thread should be.
posted by alms at 2:02 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by alms at 2:02 PM on March 13, 2006
OK, I said I was stepping away, but.....I found a google link which suggests you might consider eating an Irish kid instead.....
That was funny.
posted by languagehat at 2:02 PM on March 13, 2006
That was funny.
posted by languagehat at 2:02 PM on March 13, 2006
...given that organ trafficking is illegal...
vacapinta, Anon asked for legal means to acquire such an organ, which is why I think it's still up. However, As atrazine pointed out, it's a bit morally repugnant. Mind you, I don't have any relatives dying of organ failure, so I won't pretend to know what's going through the askers head.
posted by chunking express at 2:04 PM on March 13, 2006
vacapinta, Anon asked for legal means to acquire such an organ, which is why I think it's still up. However, As atrazine pointed out, it's a bit morally repugnant. Mind you, I don't have any relatives dying of organ failure, so I won't pretend to know what's going through the askers head.
posted by chunking express at 2:04 PM on March 13, 2006
Am I the only person who thought the original question was about how to get on the transplant list in other countries, not about how to buy a harvested organ?
posted by nomisxid at 2:51 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by nomisxid at 2:51 PM on March 13, 2006
"I would like to object to putting the MeTa link in the original askme thread.
"This is a pretty standard tactic actually. It keeps people who want to just bitch about the topic from bitching in-thread, knowing there is a place to go do that. If there's no editorializing around it, I usually think it's an okay thing to do.
"posted by jessamynAdmin at 4:05 PM EST on March 13 [!][↑]"
OH YEAH?! Well... fine, then.
posted by shmegegge at 2:52 PM on March 13, 2006
"This is a pretty standard tactic actually. It keeps people who want to just bitch about the topic from bitching in-thread, knowing there is a place to go do that. If there's no editorializing around it, I usually think it's an okay thing to do.
"posted by jessamynAdmin at 4:05 PM EST on March 13 [!][↑]"
OH YEAH?! Well... fine, then.
posted by shmegegge at 2:52 PM on March 13, 2006
If you find the question morally repugnant, then don't answer the question! I take no stand on whether the question under discussion is or is not morally equivalent to "where can I find a baby to eat?", but clearly the best response to the baby-eating question would not be platitudes and recriminations, but rather silence. (So if you think asking about foreign kidney transplants is similarly question, then don't answer the question!) A thread empty of comments would not only provide the 'best possible' answers but would perhaps send a message that could actually be heard and appreciated by the poster. Most posters, I think, are not going to listen to moral objections, no matter how valid; most posters just want to get their question answered.
posted by evinrude at 2:54 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by evinrude at 2:54 PM on March 13, 2006
Isn't allowing family members to donate their organs exploitative too? Sure, they can decline, but then the one who refuses will be forever remembered as the person who wouldn't help his or her dying relative. Sounds like a lot more coercion than any scenario mentioned above except for the political prisoner one.
posted by transona5 at 2:55 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by transona5 at 2:55 PM on March 13, 2006
"Dear AskMefi: I want to open a sweatshop in Asia. What's the best way to legally enslave nine year old girls?"
posted by orthogonality at 3:06 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by orthogonality at 3:06 PM on March 13, 2006
Some of these MeTa threads remind me of family gatherings.
posted by lobstah at 3:11 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by lobstah at 3:11 PM on March 13, 2006
Me too. Especially the ones about enslaving nine-year-old girls.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:14 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:14 PM on March 13, 2006
"Dear AskMefi: What should I do with my spare nine year old girls?"
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:15 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:15 PM on March 13, 2006
Never have I seen more straw-men in one thread. The question is from someone that may lose a relative so they asked if there are any "legal" ways they can help them. I imagine they're quite desperate and looking at all possible [legal] options.
And you're all a bunch of hypocrites to boot.
posted by meech at 3:51 PM on March 13, 2006
And you're all a bunch of hypocrites to boot.
posted by meech at 3:51 PM on March 13, 2006
"Dear AskMefi: my relative is a vampire. He will die if he can't suck the life-blood out of a young virgin every night. I know it's considered bad form to kill and suck teh still warm blood of our fellow countrymen, so I was wondering if there was a legal way to harvest the life-blood of poor brown people (and Moldovans, as delmoi pointed out).
"I know that means that while my relative's life will be longer will live, in consequqnce, some poor people lives will be shorter, but I've a relatively (ha-ha) wealthy American and am happy to pay the poor people as much as $100 per lost year of life. In this, I think you will find I am even more generous than most third-world sweatshops, mines, or poluuting factories.
"Indeed, I think of myself as a philanthropist: my relative the vampire's need is an excellent opportunity for Mahmoud to finally come up with dowry for all his daughters, except of course the one he sells me to butcher. In truth, he'll lose a daughter and gaun quite a legacy of grandchildren, more than compensating him for his loss.
"It may be uncomfortable to state publicly, but in our hearts, we all know that wealthy white Americans -- even if they are vampires -- have a God-given right to live longer and if necessary at the expense of, dirty smelly poor brown heathens who can't even be bothered to speak correct English.
"That's why even in our own country, we vote for tax cuts -- which buy us vacations to Aruba and DVDs and SUVs -- rather than for Head Start, universal medical care, or free luches for poor schoolchildren. As I sit in my den in my half-million dollar house and watch Amistad on my $10,000 entertainment center with 7.1 surround sound, I comtemplate that this is exactly how Jesus would have wanted it.
"So forget the morality, that wasn't what I asked. Whose life-blood can I suck legally? I just care about getting away with it."
posted by orthogonality at 4:08 PM on March 13, 2006
"I know that means that while my relative's life will be longer will live, in consequqnce, some poor people lives will be shorter, but I've a relatively (ha-ha) wealthy American and am happy to pay the poor people as much as $100 per lost year of life. In this, I think you will find I am even more generous than most third-world sweatshops, mines, or poluuting factories.
"Indeed, I think of myself as a philanthropist: my relative the vampire's need is an excellent opportunity for Mahmoud to finally come up with dowry for all his daughters, except of course the one he sells me to butcher. In truth, he'll lose a daughter and gaun quite a legacy of grandchildren, more than compensating him for his loss.
"It may be uncomfortable to state publicly, but in our hearts, we all know that wealthy white Americans -- even if they are vampires -- have a God-given right to live longer and if necessary at the expense of, dirty smelly poor brown heathens who can't even be bothered to speak correct English.
"That's why even in our own country, we vote for tax cuts -- which buy us vacations to Aruba and DVDs and SUVs -- rather than for Head Start, universal medical care, or free luches for poor schoolchildren. As I sit in my den in my half-million dollar house and watch Amistad on my $10,000 entertainment center with 7.1 surround sound, I comtemplate that this is exactly how Jesus would have wanted it.
"So forget the morality, that wasn't what I asked. Whose life-blood can I suck legally? I just care about getting away with it."
posted by orthogonality at 4:08 PM on March 13, 2006
What orthogonality said.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:41 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 4:41 PM on March 13, 2006
man, who knew that looking for way to save a relative's life necessarily meant being party to murder?
posted by shmegegge at 4:51 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 4:51 PM on March 13, 2006
Vampires are people too.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:54 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:54 PM on March 13, 2006
Er, I think.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:54 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:54 PM on March 13, 2006
What shmegegge said.
Most people can live a normal healthy life with one kidney.
posted by meech at 4:56 PM on March 13, 2006
Most people can live a normal healthy life with one kidney.
posted by meech at 4:56 PM on March 13, 2006
As I sit in my den in my half-million dollar house and watch Amistad on my $10,000 entertainment center with 7.1 surround sound, I comtemplate that this is exactly how Jesus would have wanted it.
Ouch.
posted by caddis at 5:01 PM on March 13, 2006
Ouch.
posted by caddis at 5:01 PM on March 13, 2006
Wow, you people are vicious. The mockery is really beyond the pale, especially given the desperation of the AskMe poster.
IMHO, these snippy armchair ethical analyses, by people who know nothing of the original poster's situation other than the few words in the question, certainly shouldn't have any sway over a reasonable person's life-or-death medical decisions.
posted by jayder at 5:05 PM on March 13, 2006
IMHO, these snippy armchair ethical analyses, by people who know nothing of the original poster's situation other than the few words in the question, certainly shouldn't have any sway over a reasonable person's life-or-death medical decisions.
posted by jayder at 5:05 PM on March 13, 2006
are we 100% certain that the original AskMe thread was not a troll?
posted by popechunk at 5:13 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by popechunk at 5:13 PM on March 13, 2006
Oooh, nice.
Ask Metafilter: snippy armchair ethical analyses, by people who know nothing of the original poster's situation other than the few words in the question
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:24 PM on March 13, 2006
Ask Metafilter: snippy armchair ethical analyses, by people who know nothing of the original poster's situation other than the few words in the question
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:24 PM on March 13, 2006
these snippy armchair ethical analyses, by people who know nothing of the original poster's situation other than the few words in the question, certainly shouldn't have any sway over a reasonable person's life-or-death medical decisions
Yup. But few people can resist making a public show of their advanced capacity for moral outrage.
posted by languagehat at 5:40 PM on March 13, 2006
Yup. But few people can resist making a public show of their advanced capacity for moral outrage.
posted by languagehat at 5:40 PM on March 13, 2006
If you find the question morally repugnant, then don't answer the question!
As I've said before, I don't think it's necessary to stay completely out of AskMe threads where we have an observation that doesn't directly answer the question as it was asked. We can still contribute alternate viewpoints and additional ideas if we're thoughtful and helpful. Keeping the usefulness of the site in mind when responding is a good idea, as is the idea that an asker might listen and respond better and actually consider responses that aren't full of recriminations and MoralOutrageFilter.
posted by Gator at 5:58 PM on March 13, 2006
As I've said before, I don't think it's necessary to stay completely out of AskMe threads where we have an observation that doesn't directly answer the question as it was asked. We can still contribute alternate viewpoints and additional ideas if we're thoughtful and helpful. Keeping the usefulness of the site in mind when responding is a good idea, as is the idea that an asker might listen and respond better and actually consider responses that aren't full of recriminations and MoralOutrageFilter.
posted by Gator at 5:58 PM on March 13, 2006
Dear Metafilter,
In my country abortions are illegal. Is there somewhere I could get one legally? My fellow countrymen find the practice barbaric and unethical. I'm in a desperate situation and want to do the right thing, what are my options?
posted by blue_beetle at 6:09 PM on March 13, 2006
In my country abortions are illegal. Is there somewhere I could get one legally? My fellow countrymen find the practice barbaric and unethical. I'm in a desperate situation and want to do the right thing, what are my options?
posted by blue_beetle at 6:09 PM on March 13, 2006
Dear Abortion-wanter,
What you are asking is illegal and equivalent to murder. I hope you suffer and die horribly, because I disagree with you. That is all.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:10 PM on March 13, 2006
What you are asking is illegal and equivalent to murder. I hope you suffer and die horribly, because I disagree with you. That is all.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:10 PM on March 13, 2006
I am looking to get my son circumsized, but I am afraid that, because he is so fat, it will make his penis look smaller. I also have a crazing for eating human kidney while engaging in the noble bloodsport of foxhunting. Suggestions?
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:17 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:17 PM on March 13, 2006
That's right, I said crazing.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:17 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:17 PM on March 13, 2006
I suggest you declaw your cat and buy a tuning fork. This is supported by SCIENCE.
posted by Gator at 7:21 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by Gator at 7:21 PM on March 13, 2006
languagehat, what an exemplary display of hypocrisy! Kudos!
posted by alms at 8:25 PM on March 13, 2006
posted by alms at 8:25 PM on March 13, 2006
Yup. But few people can resist making a public show of their advanced capacity for moral outrage.
hear hear! languagehat ftw.
posted by shmegegge at 8:34 PM on March 13, 2006
hear hear! languagehat ftw.
posted by shmegegge at 8:34 PM on March 13, 2006
First Man: Hello, er can we have your liver...?
Mr Bloke: My what?
First Man: Your liver... it's a large glandular organ in your abdomen... you know it's a reddish-brown and it's sort of -
Mr Bloke: Yes, I know what it is, but I'm using it.
Second Man: Come on sir... don't muck us about.
posted by pyramid termite at 9:14 PM on March 13, 2006
Mr Bloke: My what?
First Man: Your liver... it's a large glandular organ in your abdomen... you know it's a reddish-brown and it's sort of -
Mr Bloke: Yes, I know what it is, but I'm using it.
Second Man: Come on sir... don't muck us about.
posted by pyramid termite at 9:14 PM on March 13, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by aberrant at 11:48 AM on March 13, 2006