>> ^Drax:
We treat ourselves differently because we're self aware. A human mind has a whole different level of understanding of itself and the world then any animal. If you put down a lame horse, it's not begging for mercy thinking of all it has to loose, and knows that it's about to die and fears what may lie beyond it's own death.
If we do overcome physical defects, then the genes that have passed down will benefit from diversity, I think. Help everyone best we can, I say.


Humanity does not experience survival of the fittest like other species on this planet.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
This is probably not going to make me many friends, but does our compassion as a species make us unnatural?

Unnatural is not the word, but perhaps "unique as a species" would properly express what you mean.

And I wonder about that too. We seem to go out of the way to try to guarantee not only survival of the unfit, but reproduction as well. I am not willing to give up the human compassion that makes this possible, but I do wonder if we are harming ourselves as a species by struggling for adequate welfare and universal health care. I don't think there is an objectively right answer there. But speaking subjectively, the alternative is just too cold-hearted and downright cruel.

Also, as a forward looking individual, I see a day when all these genetic diseases will be eradicated anyway. So don't stress about it that much.

>> ^raverman:
To be honest... (and i hate myself for saying this)
In a public health system as existing in other countries he probably would be forced to move to a care facility for 24/7 nursing. The taxpayer wouldn't be asked to pay for such high intensive at home care.
He has the right to care, but he doesn't have the right to unlimited care at home with his own luxuries.
Not a good example for health care reform since: he probably would be reviewed by a panel of doctors and assessed as needing to move to a nursing facility. He currently has a blank cheque for unlimited care. The situation managed badly... but insurance is not an unlimited golden ticket.


I dont know exactly how the law is written in all cases but I do know that in schools there are "integration" laws (quoted because I dont believe that's the exact term, maybe "inclusion" laws). Those laws basically state that accommodations need to, by law, be made in every possible situation.

If your child were confined at home, for example, and needed private tutoring every-single-schoolday you would the accommodations would have to be made. Those accommodations could potentially include private tutoring but only as a last resort. As it is, they will do anything and everything to bring you into the actual classroom; and staying at home would be like a last resort.

I'm not sure how the laws would work in a government health care system but I imagine it would be something similar where accommodations of disabled individuals would be outstretched to the point of inclusion but not at the cost of personal freedom.

I dont know exactly how the law is written in all cases but I do know that in schools there are "integration" laws (quoted because I dont believe that's the exact term, maybe "inclusion" laws). Those laws basically state that accommodations need to, by law, be made in every possible situation.

If your child were confined at home, for example, and needed private tutoring every-single-schoolday you would the accommodations would have to be made. Those accommodations could potentially include private tutoring but only as a last resort. As it is, they will do anything and everything to bring you into the actual classroom; and staying at home would be like a last resort.

I'm not sure how the laws would work in a government health care system but I imagine it would be something similar where accommodations of disabled individuals would be outstretched to the point of inclusion but not at the cost of personal freedom.

In reply to this comment by raverman:
To be honest... (and i hate myself for saying this)

In a public health system as existing in other countries he probably would be forced to move to a care facility for 24/7 nursing. The taxpayer wouldn't be asked to pay for such high intensive at home care.

He has the right to care, but he doesn't have the right to unlimited care at home with his own luxuries.

Not a good example for health care reform since: he probably would be reviewed by a panel of doctors and assessed as needing to move to a nursing facility. He currently has a blank cheque for unlimited care. The situation managed badly... but insurance is not an unlimited golden ticket.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
This is probably not going to make me many friends, but does our compassion as a species make us unnatural?



What does that even mean? How could anything we do "conflict with nature"? Did our capacity for compassion come from some rift in space-time, bestowed upon us by trans-dimensional higher beings? Hell, even that wouldn't actually be unnatural, because everything that exists is by definition part of the natural world.

Your video, Insurance Company Issues Death Sentence to Customer, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

State nursing care != death sentence

>> ^UsesProzac:
>> ^TheFreak:
Yes, this can't be the whole story. He must be using that money to live a decadent life. Sleazy MS disabled con artist living the good life with his electric wheel chairs and people paid to wipe his ass every time he takes a shit. I mean, his health care costs alone probably total at least 1/10 of the bonus paid to the CEO of Guardian last year!
Let's hear the whole story! I mean, the fact that we get health insurance to safeguard against the cost of care in the case of catastrophic health problems does not justify ANYONE having their health care costs covered by an insurance company in the case of catastrophic health problems! It's a good thing there are state laws that protect insurers from having to pay when patients become this ill.

What the fuck is wrong with you? I'd really like to see you maintain this sentiment if you were that fucking sick.

sarcasm detection fail

>> ^TheFreak:
Yes, this can't be the whole story. He must be using that money to live a decadent life. Sleazy MS disabled con artist living the good life with his electric wheel chairs and people paid to wipe his ass every time he takes a shit. I mean, his health care costs alone probably total at least 1/10 of the bonus paid to the CEO of Guardian last year!
Let's hear the whole story! I mean, the fact that we get health insurance to safeguard against the cost of care in the case of catastrophic health problems does not justify ANYONE having their health care costs covered by an insurance company in the case of catastrophic health problems! It's a good thing there are state laws that protect insurers from having to pay when patients become this ill.


What the fuck is wrong with you? I'd really like to see you maintain this sentiment if you were that fucking sick.

>> ^RadHazG:
As for the killer himself, as horrible as our prisons can be, I still have a hard time justifying keeping people like him alive, costing the taxpayers money and time when he himself deprived 4 people of their lives and many others of their family/friends. The problem is, if even ONE innocent man/woman ever got killed by the death penalty by my view that made/makes anyone who supported the system who killed him, accessories by default. Opinions?


It's actually more expensive and time consuming to put people to death. Link.

It has also been shown NOT to be a deterrent; that is, capital offenses do not happen less frequently in areas with the death penalty.

Additionally, if you click through my link above and scroll down to Federal Costs (3rd heading down) you will see that defendants in the lower 3rd of money spent on legal representation (less than $320,000) had a 44% chance of receiving a death sentence. For the upper 2/3rd (spending more than $320,000 on representation), the rate is 19%. Our system is imperfect and skewed toward those with money. It's not something that can necessarily be fixed, but it's not dependable enough to use as a basis to start killing people.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
So instead of working to fix the system, beginning with the examination of the flaws that led to a conviction and death sentence of a possibly-innocent man, he'd rather bury his head in the sand and declare the system flawless?
Why do you make the strange assumption that he isn't interested in helping improve the system? Such 'either/or' perspectives are not particularly nuanced and smack of propogandism.

Quoting from Ornthoron's quote:
"Obviously under such conditions (a lot of) mistakes are going to be made. If such mistakes make verdicts unconstitutional, then the whole system is unconstitutional.”

The problem isn't that the mistakes are going to be made. It's how you deal with those mistakes. If you are forced to say "I'll sacrifice a few innocent people for the sake of the system", you're saying the system is OK as is, and is worth the sacrifice in order to protect it's integrity.

The US court system has a man who was convicted in one court and exonerated in another. Instead of saying "Let's bring this up to the highest level and examine it under a microscope, since there's obviously something fishy about this case", he's saying "Even though a US court found him not guilty, I choose to ignore that fact and execute anyway".

So instead of working to fix the system, beginning with the examination of the flaws that led to a conviction and death sentence of a possibly-innocent man, he'd rather bury his head in the sand and declare the system flawless?

Why do you make the strange assumption that he isn't interested in helping improve the system? Such 'either/or' perspectives are not particularly nuanced and smack of propogandism.

^ So instead of working to fix the system, beginning with the examination of the flaws that led to a conviction and death sentence of a possibly-innocent man, he'd rather bury his head in the sand and declare the system flawless?

Did he say "epiphummy?"

Just listening to this guy talk reeks of his lack of intelligence.

Look how he twists everything to what he wants it to mean. "Death sentence?" Come on...