(October 19, 2010 at 6:19 pm)theVOID Wrote: Failing to use words as defined hinders communication.

And I respect your right to hold this belief. However, I believe in the freedom of people to express their views in their own words. It's not as if either of us can ethically impose our beliefs on the other, is it?

Quote:If they volunteer for the procedure then there is no unethical conduct, you may be personally uncomfortable with it, but if all of the relevant parties are in agreement then it cannot possibly be unethical, it would only be the case if the men getting vasectomies are not aware of the procedure taking place or are mislead about the consequences.

Agreement obtained as a result of a bribe is not genuine agreement.

Quote:I could pay a physician to remove my testicles

er...

(October 19, 2010 at 6:54 pm)Existentialist Wrote:

(October 19, 2010 at 6:19 pm)theVOID Wrote: Failing to use words as defined hinders communication.

And I respect your right to hold this belief. However, I believe in the freedom of people to express their views in their own words. It's not as if either of us can ethically impose our beliefs on the other, is it?

Aka - I can redefine anything to what I want! Nya~Nya!

(October 19, 2010 at 6:54 pm)Existentialist Wrote:

Quote:If they volunteer for the procedure then there is no unethical conduct, you may be personally uncomfortable with it, but if all of the relevant parties are in agreement then it cannot possibly be unethical, it would only be the case if the men getting vasectomies are not aware of the procedure taking place or are mislead about the consequences.

Agreement obtained as a result of a bribe is not genuine agreement.

[/quote]
So if a car dealer gave you a significant cash back for signing into an installment plan that you possibly can or cannot afford/want, is it bribery?

What about paying someone to live in a homeless shelter instead of being on the street? Is that bribery - after all, you are depriving them of their "right" in some way to be roaming about freely. Where does incentives stop and bribery begin?

Define that. Else, you're merely re-emitting the usual fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) commonly associated with political causes.

(October 19, 2010 at 6:54 pm)Existentialist Wrote:

Quote:I could pay a physician to remove my testicles

er...

Can we all chip in, obviously to "bribe" you?

Here is the definition of FUD before Existentialist redefines it:

Quote:Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a tactic of rhetoric and fallacy used in sales, marketing, public relations,[1][2] politics, propaganda and trolling. FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs. An individual firm, for example, might use FUD to invite unfavorable opinions and speculation about a competitor's product; to increase the general estimation of switching costs among current customers; or to maintain leverage over a current business partner who could potentially become a rival.

FUD techniques may be crude and simple, as in claiming "I read a paper by a Harvard professor that shows you are wrong regarding subject XXX", but the paper does not exist. (Were the paper to exist then it would not be FUD but valid criticism.) Alternatively FUD may be very subtle, employing an indirect approach. Someone who employs FUD cannot generally back up their claims (e.g., "I don't recall which professor or which year the paper is from"). To dispel FUD, the easiest way is to ask for details and then provide well researched hard facts which disprove them. For instance, if it can be shown that no Harvard professor has ever written a paper on subject XXX, then the FUD is dispelled.

(October 19, 2010 at 7:13 pm)Synackaon Wrote: Aka - I can redefine anything to what I want! Nya~Nya!

Well you can, but I trust you not to, and if you do, I trust you to have a good reason for it, and if you don't, I'm sure you'll trust me to respond appropriately. All conversations depend on mutual trust. If that breaks down, you can't legislate for it in its place.

Quote:So if a car dealer gave you a significant cash back for signing into an installment plan that you possibly can or cannot afford/want, is it bribery?

Well it's all a matter of opinion isn't it? If you really, really loathe capitalism and everything about it, or even just car dealers, you may well look on cash back as a bribe. Infact you may have any number of reasons for thinking it's a bribe or an attempted bribe. I wouldn't, personally, but that's my opinion based on my experience of car dealers, but if somebody else did want to call it a bribe, that's cool. There's no right or wrong in these things, just personal opinions.

Quote:What about paying someone to live in a homeless shelter instead of being on the street? Is that bribery - after all, you are depriving them of their "right" in some way to be roaming about freely. Where does incentives stop and bribery begin?

Depends. Let's say there's a particular hotspot of homeless people next to a middle class area that the authorities want to target so go round offering immediate cash payments to encourage those people into a homeless shelter. Yes, that would be a bribe, I think. Normal benefits paid to all homeless people probably wouldn't.

Quote:Define that. Else, you're merely re-emitting the usual fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) commonly associated with political causes.

Jolly interesting, I'm sure.

Paying drug addicts to have sterilisation operations is a bribe - unethical, shabby, inadvisable and actionable.

Quote:Well you can, but I trust you not to, and if you do, I trust you to have a good reason for it, and if you don't, I'm sure you'll trust me to respond appropriately. All conversations depend on mutual trust. If that breaks down, you can't legislate for it in its place.

Ah, the usual oppositional "you can't make me" stuff. Really tiring. Why don't you go revolt against the Man? Hm?

When you're ready to reintegrate into conversation without playing ideologue games of redefine this and that, let me know.

Quote:Well it's all a matter of opinion isn't it? If you really, really loathe capitalism and everything about it, or even just car dealers, you may well look on cash back as a bribe. Infact you may have any number of reasons for thinking it's a bribe or an attempted bribe. I wouldn't, personally, but that's my opinion based on my experience of car dealers, but if somebody else did want to call it a bribe, that's cool. There's no right or wrong in these things, just personal opinions.

And we get to the "it's all relative" crap. That ensures that you cannot possibly be proven wrong or shown to be out of proportion. I love it. It's as cowardly as "We'll agree to disagree".

(October 19, 2010 at 7:28 pm)Existentialist Wrote: Depends. Let's say there's a particular hotspot of homeless people next to a middle class area that the authorities want to target so go round offering immediate cash payments to encourage those people into a homeless shelter. Yes, that would be a bribe, I think. Normal benefits paid to all homeless people probably wouldn't.

I love conspiracy theories. So only ultra generalized activities are now innocent? What the hell?

One size fits all is bullshit - this isn't some idealized world. Applying specific methods to combat a larger problem is procedurally sound. Seems like you're arguing ideology versus pragmatism.

(October 19, 2010 at 7:28 pm)Existentialist Wrote: Paying drug addicts to have sterilisation operations is a bribe - unethical, shabby, inadvisable and actionable.

I like how you choose the most fear mongering word possible. It's a vasectomy. They are reversible (thank you India).

You're using "sterilization" to conjure up boogeymen ranging from Action T-4 of Nazi Germany to fears of things being "permanent". I don't appreciate fear mongering.

Hang on Synackaon - you're the one who asked for definitions from me!!! Make your mind up!!! And believe me - I find the phrase "We'll agree to disagree" as annoying as you do, which is why I haven't said it, I just keep answering posts that I disagree with. I haven't the foggiest idea why you're talking about conspiracy theories, you're the one that set up the scenario for me to respond to! What the hell do you mean, "seems like you're arguing ideology versus pragmatism"? What are you on about?

I think you'll find sterilisation is a legitimate word to describe a vasectomy. No fear mongering intended, but I think the reversibility is open to debate as obviously does the British Medical Association spokesman quoted in the article I mentioned earlier - have a read.

Hey, if they were reversible and the cash they paid you was enough to reverse the surgery with a little money left over you could get rich and all you would have to do is become a drug addict! I'm so moving to the UK and stuff.

(October 19, 2010 at 8:40 pm)Existentialist Wrote: Hang on Synackaon - you're the one who asked for definitions from me!!!

I asked and got a non-answer.

Existentialist Wrote:Well it's all a matter of opinion isn't it? If you really, really loathe capitalism and everything about it, or even just car dealers, you may well look on cash back as a bribe. Infact you may have any number of reasons for thinking it's a bribe or an attempted bribe. I wouldn't, personally, but that's my opinion based on my experience of car dealers, but if somebody else did want to call it a bribe, that's cool. There's no right or wrong in these things, just personal opinions.

That wasn't a definition. That was side stepping the question. You merely took my query and blew it out your ass in favor of a relative statement.

Never mind that language was evolved to facilitate communication and you just threw that out with your redefining things and then blurting out how you can oh so do it.

(October 19, 2010 at 8:40 pm)Existentialist Wrote: I haven't the foggiest idea why you're talking about conspiracy theories, you're the one that set up the scenario for me to respond to! What the hell do you mean, "seems like you're arguing ideology versus pragmatism"? What are you on about?

I gave a hypothetical that was very limited. It was you who introduced another faction and implication of "targeting". It was you who set the tone of the big bad side ganging up on the helpless hobo side. It was you who made blanket statements without delving deep into the ethics at hand - in this case you did not identify any form of harm nor any form of infringement.

Your dogged dedication to never hammering out your definitions, never spelling out what, how and why something you claim is bad is really bad reeks of the same stink as our marauding fundamentalist Christians, who also bleat out how they're never understood while shifting definitions and being intellectually dishonest. Just like any ideologue.

And my pragmatic bit came in response to your boogeyman of a third party, in this case government, targeting a specific "hotbed" of homeless. I'd like to point out that tailoring a specific action to meet the needs of a situation is the act of being pragmatic - independent of ideology, which usually would like to substitute it's own worldview over reality.

(October 19, 2010 at 8:40 pm)Existentialist Wrote: I think you'll find sterilisation is a legitimate word to describe a vasectomy. No fear mongering intended, but I think the reversibility is open to debate as obviously does the British Medical Association spokesman quoted in the article I mentioned earlier - have a read.

You're ignoring my point in favor of using a word you wanted to use. Words have a history. Just like symbols. Which is why one cannot walk with a swastika pasted on their forehead in modern times and not be called a Nazi. Or use the term "gay" and not have it mean anything but a homosexual. Two little examples that show that minor definitions mean jack shit when placed in a modern cultural context that defines language.

I love that bit on "open to debate". Then again. there are many forms of vasectomy. Some use glues that can be dissolved again. Others tie the tubes together, breaking flow. Some are more permanent than others. But anything short of the balls being removed or the components atrophying, it's reversible.

---

(October 19, 2010 at 9:10 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Hey, if they were reversible and the cash they paid you was enough to reverse the surgery with a little money left over you could get rich and all you would have to do is become a drug addict! I'm so moving to the UK and stuff.

Isn't that nice then that surgery to undo drastic changes is usually magnitudes above the cost to make the change in the first place?

Vasectomies are a form of voluntary damage to the reproductive system. While quite a few can be reversed, some cannot due to an inability to properly heal or generate tissue of the appropriate tensile strength. It's not a flaw in the procedure, but in the body. We can improved procedures to be applicable to a larger body of people, but there will always be limits and exceptions.

Just because a limit or exception exists, by probability, is no reason not to do undertake said action. Only when it becomes a real possibility. And even then, informed consent, which is part of any civilized country's medical system, is there to brief one on their chances.

Synackoan Wrote:And we get to the "it's all relative" crap. That ensures that you cannot possibly be proven wrong or shown to be out of proportion. I love it. It's as cowardly as "We'll agree to disagree".

What a joke!


----------------

Quote:Paying drug addicts to have sterilisation operations is a bribe - unethical, shabby, inadvisable and actionable.

----------------

The first part of this sentence,

Quote:Paying drug addicts to have sterilisation operations is a bribe

is true under one definition in the dictionary.

This part;

Quote:unethical, shabby, inadvisable and actionable.

is a moral judgement, hence, a personal opinion, as defined by yourself.

Its all semantics. As many words have many different meanings, it is very difficult to use an undefined word to accurately describe the topics & scenarios at hand. Unless you actually define which meaning for a word you are using in the first instance, to allow for greater communication, true understanding on all sides is hard to accomplish. Having said that, it is free forum, and Id expect nothing to change.

(October 19, 2010 at 11:46 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote:

Quote:unethical, shabby, inadvisable and actionable.

is a moral judgement, hence, a personal opinion, as defined by yourself.

It becomes a general rule when applied to a large body along cultural lines. I am criticizing Existentialist's refusal to show their arguments for why it is unethical, inadvisable and actionable.

I am also criticizing Existentialist for not showing any evidence to allow for the initial statement "Paying drug addicts to have sterilisation operations is a bribe - unethical, shabby, inadvisable and actionable."

So no. It was not a load of crap.

Nice try. You can string any series of words together, but it is all hollow if you don't back it up.

And none of it has been backed up.

Just blatant statements worthy of a fundamentalist and nothing else.

Well then, lets all tear each other up then. King of the Castle. The last one standing wins.....

Quote:So no. It was not a load of crap.

Don't think I am agreeing with you. Quite the opposite actually. I stated, in my opinion, that half his statement was correct. I have given assertions to as why I think it is a good idea. So, no, I don't think it is entirely a load of crap, as you put it.

Quote:It becomes a general rule when applied to a large body along cultural lines.

That dosen't mean it is the correct method, becuase the majority think it is. Take a look at religion!

But I am a bit confused with the way you have worded this. Are you talking to Existentialist or myself?