Now is the time ...
Pages
| Author | Topic: Now is the time ... |
|---|---|
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Friday, March 30 2007 01:33
Profile
quote:Here in Finland, a skilled mechanic or a carpenter can make more money than a doctor or a lawyer. Plus, they can start making it sooner, as becoming a lawyer or a doctor requires from 6 to 9 years of education after ground school, where as a carpenter or a mechanic can get to work after 3. - Someone who's in a vocational school himself. -------------------- I have nothing more to do in this world, so I can go & pester the inhabitants of the next one with a pure concscience. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4638
|
written Friday, March 30 2007 03:39
Profile
Protcol- Two Quick Sets of Questions: 1. Do you then contend that socialists have a good history when dealing with racial issues? How about human rights issues? I have no answer for the past bad acts of individuals who would claim to be libertarians. (Just like I imagine you can't explain away the grave atrocities committed by socialists in the last century.) I only submit that inherently, the theory of libertarianism is not racist. 2. Do you think affirmative action is a racist policy? I base this question on the definition of racism - "Discrimination or prejudice based on race." It would seem that affirmative action treats people differently based on their race, aka racial discrimination. Dintiridan- 1. Your fact scenario presupposes that America is a libertarian system. I disagree with your stipulation that the system currently employed in America is libertarian. 2. Libertarianism does not speak to equal opportunity, or the statements ii)-iv) that you made. Libertarianism makes no promise of equal opportunity, only people will be allowed to live as they wish as long as they do not affect the liberty of others. I would submit that ii)-iv) are you own conclusions (as racist as they may be). Therefore, in a libertarian system there may be reasons for inequalities between groups of people that you would choose to classify. Inequality is not a goal of libertarianism, nor is libertarianism an attempt to answer the question of why inequalities exist. I think that you might argue that it would not be racial equitable to institute a pure libertarian system in America due to the demonstrated discrepancies in wealth between individuals of different races. That is a different argument, however. I again reject the idea that there is anything inherently racist about the political theory of libertarianism. -------------------- And so it goes. Posts: 93 | Registered: Tuesday, June 29 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, March 30 2007 07:11
Profile
Homepage
It might be worth noting that socialism and communism are not exactly the same thing, too; while communists have a really bad record on human rights, socialists have a pretty good one. I know that communists have a pretty good (though certainly not perfect) record on race relations, but I'm not as sure about socialists. (And here under "socialism" I'm including e.g. Britain's Labour Party and France's Socialist Party, and under "communism" I'm including e.g. the old U.S.S.R.'s one party, China's one party, and France's Communist Party.) Of course, the United States doesn't have a good socialist party, as far as I can tell. We have to choose between the Democrats (not nearly left enough on economic issues to be socialist), the Greens (mostly good but a little ineffectual, and Nader's kinda out of touch), and the SWP (rather quite a bit too communist for my tastes). [ Friday, March 30, 2007 07:12: Message edited by: Malakos the Freshly-Plowed ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2080
|
written Friday, March 30 2007 11:47
Profile
Socialism... Communism... not much of a line between the two. Much like Capitalism and Imperialism... WARNING: The following is a series of observations(very long ones). Do not read it if you don't feel like it. Ultimately, there are 5 things that separate people: Ethnicity, Religion, Gender, Personality, and Wealth. All of these have real effects on the individual. Of these, Ethnicity is the most trivial. Seriously, black, white, hispanic, asian... doesn't matter. In the end we're all human. Those who generalize or a an entire race are too stupid and lazy to focus their hate on individuals like they're supposed to. Next up is religion. Countless wars have been fought in the name of religion, most of which really had nothing to do with religion. Religion is supposed to be something to fulfill spiritual needs, not an excess to kill a bunch of innocent children and destroy entire towns. Unless it's that other guy's religious believe to kill you, you probly shouldn't been trying to kill him. Then there's gender... Woman are better at doing some things than Men and if a woman does the required amount of work, she should be paid as much as a man. Keep in mind that the inverse is true of Men. Women and Men generally have different, yet diverse interest. No one gender should have complete say in how everything is run, nor should one gender be 2nd class to another. Next we have Wealth. Money is power. Those who have money generally tend to want to have as much of it they can. What they don't have, they want. Unlike race, wealth legitimately has real value when measuring a person. However, since money tends to corrupt people(not that something else wouldn't have), the results of measuring a person with money tends to not be very positive. Left unchecked, a rich person has no fear. This form of checking ironically comes from other rich people. So long as a rivalry among rich people can remain in effect that should be enough to keep the rich from completely enslaving the masses. Finally there's personality, the best measure of a person. We born, to a certain degree we all have a clean slate. Unfortunately, the previously 4 aspects of existence. If you could have a fresh generation that could be raised without those 4 aforementioned measures of society. Remove the preconceptions. Remove the negative upbringing, first started by ignorance then continued by stupidity. Then educate them. Only by doing all of that could humanity even consider possibility of trying to have a decent, let alone ideal, society. -------------------- "I don't understand a word you just said. Try speaking American. It's the only language I understand." Posts: 1918 | Registered: Sunday, October 13 2002 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2080
|
written Friday, March 30 2007 11:49
Profile
stupid quote button being next to the edit button [ Friday, March 30, 2007 11:51: Message edited by: LF ] -------------------- "I don't understand a word you just said. Try speaking American. It's the only language I understand." Posts: 1918 | Registered: Sunday, October 13 2002 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, March 30 2007 11:52
Profile
Homepage
quote:Your ideal society might not be able to reproduce, though, if you remove that third division in society. :P -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Friday, March 30 2007 14:38
Profile
Homepage
He did say gender and not sex. Besides, there's always budding and parthenogenesis. :P Dikiyoba wonders what a removal of gender would do to public bathrooms. On one hand, it would be a lot easier to be able to use the first one you came across instead of trying to find the correct one and would save on construction costs in places where the bathrooms are rarely used. On the other hand, bathroom breaks in a large group would take longer since there would only be one bathroom instead of two. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Friday, March 30 2007 15:14
Profile
Homepage
There are actually plenty of places where they use unisex bathrooms today -- and they aren't exactly the homes of genderless societies. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Friday, March 30 2007 15:44
Profile
Homepage
True, but there are also places like my high school, where both men's restrooms were on one side of the building and both women's restrooms were on the other side and there wasn't always enough time to get across the building and back to class without being tardy. But Dikiyoba wasn't being too terribly serious there anyway. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
Too Sexy for my Title
Member # 5654
|
written Friday, March 30 2007 17:03
Profile
quote:That reminds me of my college. We have this building that has the two women bathroom in the second floor, and the two male ones on the third floor. So many students (Alas, myself included :( ) have ended up gotten confused and entering on the wrong bathroom... more than once. PS. I love how people say 'tardy' :P Posts: 1035 | Registered: Friday, April 1 2005 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Friday, March 30 2007 18:04
Profile
quote:Please, call me Alec. quote:I agree the theory itself is not racist. In fact, you could well do what I do in response to your question and claim that those people aren't 'libertarian' at all. I distinguish libertarians (small-l, the philosophy) and Libertarians (big-L, the party), largely in the former's favor. American socialism has long been an opponent of the Soviet state. Eugene Debs was actually notable among his contemporaries for disdaining Lenin's experiment in the USSR before the popular (and well-funded) historiography got the better of it. Decrying statist Marxism and calling its evils those of socialism is no more fair than would be decrying North Korea and calling its evils those of the republic. (Remember - the official designation of NK is, in fact, the Democratic Republic of Korea.) The term used by the left for the USSR's ideology is 'state capitalism'; the same excesses and vices that characterize any capitalist system existed in the USSR, it's just that the exploiters belonged to a class of investors in the polity rather than investors in the economy. Given long enough, the two become the same thing: witness China, where the businessmen are increasingly running the so-called 'socialist' country. I have nothing but respect for the basic principles of libertarianism - except its veneration of property, which I consider the mother of its errors in disdaining the importance of a utilitarian calculus. While in terms of American politics 'libertarian socialism' is an oxymoron, it is probably the easiest way to categorize what I and in fact most of the American far-left believe. The only purpose of the state is an instrument for the improvement of the human condition; using it to restrict people's legal rights is repugnant. quote:I think Affirmative Action is slightly flawed in its methodology - favoring the few wealthy blacks there are over poor whites - but it's not racist. The aim behind it is to open doors to racial minorities that society has shut, and to level a playing field that systematic biases in the scoring/testing/grading system has tilted. The 'preferential treatment' it gives is in fact an effort to make the treatment equal. If you look through Kelandon (Makalos the Freshly Plowed)'s posts recently, you'll find his complaints about test prep - test prep is the bane of meritocracy in that it allows children of wealth to increase their apparent capabilities. Estimates on the systematic advantage of native-born American whites on the SAT range from around 50 to 200; this advantage is basically the product of test prep, both privately and in the better schools whites have access to. In other words, the goal of Affirmative Action is to make sure that the slight advantage the wealthy members of the cultural majority have in standardized measurements of aptitude isn't overrepresented. This is why, by the way, AA only affects (relatively) mediocre students; if you have a 1600 (or, in the new system, whatever a perfect score is) on your SAT, chances are you'd get a profoundly good grade with or without the extra 200 points being born into the right family can net you. On the other hand, at 1300 points, that 200 points extra one would get from going to a better school or having access to private tutors is the difference between a decent school and community college. While AA might seem racist, it only is racist if you accept the conclusion that the difference in score between white and black students is the product of some kind of inborn racial inferiority. AA isn't perfect; it should ideally exist to compensate for the deviation on standard test averages wherever they exist. (The poor get far lower standardized scores than the rich, to the point that a poor student has to be near-genius to keep up with a just above-average wealthy student.) But where it is now is a good start. To use a simple analogy: affirmative action is as racist as women's suffrage is sexist. I hope that answers your question. It stems from a pretty common misconception. quote:Nothing's racist about small-l libertarianism; to a large extent I subscribe to the philosophy. But the Libertarian Party, on a small level party-wide and especially at the candidate level, has a lot of serious race issues. [ Friday, March 30, 2007 18:08: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 2080
|
written Saturday, March 31 2007 04:59
Profile
The problem with affirmative action is that is racist, much like Black History Month. Anything that revolves around race is. No sugar coating can change that. Instead of going well out of our way to show off what black(because most blacks in this country did not come from Africa within one or two generations, and don't worry, I hold crackers to the same standard) people is practically saying, "Look at them, they're not white. Nope, not white at all." Instead of having a month dedicated to Black History, why don't we do the intelligent thing and give Black History its deserved amount of space in all history books. As far as affirmative action goes. I've heard it being justified as a way to compensate for flaws in the Testing System that makes Blacks seem inferior to Whites. The tests do have merit and the only reason Blacks don't seem to do as well as Whites is because of the environment and education system many Blacks(as well as several Whites) have to deal. My proposed solution is this why don't we "Improve the Education System and Environment the children are raised in." Sounds impossible you say, well just look at the Harlem Children's Zone and then tell me it can't be done. That's just one example how things should be done in this(and many other) country. -------------------- "I don't understand a word you just said. Try speaking American. It's the only language I understand." Posts: 1918 | Registered: Sunday, October 13 2002 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Saturday, March 31 2007 06:32
Profile
Homepage
LF, your alternatives (along with other, similar measures) sound great. How do you plan on implementing them? I don't think I've ever heard affirmative action described as an ideal solution. It is a compensatory measure, a pragmatic solution that is far from ideal. The idea is that it makes things less unfair. There is an argument to be made that someone's always going to be getting shafted in any kind of system of tests or applications, and AA just changes the order of things slightly; but even from that point of view, it's not making things any worse, just creating an isotope. Personally, I'd rather have an isotope that helps people who have been underhelped in the past. I don't really care what measurement is used to determine that as long as it's accurate. Affirmative action based on money instead of race would be genius, though I don't see that happening in this country. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 6670
|
written Saturday, March 31 2007 08:40
Profile
Homepage
This has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, but Alec, check your PMs. I don't know your e-mail, and there's a good chance you'll read this thread again before tomorrow. Sorry for the diversion. -------------------- Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it. - Steven Wright Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Saturday, March 31 2007 12:03
Profile
LF, even controlling for all those factors, you're ideal society would not erupt from them like Athena from Zeus' head. People are competitive, form factions, establish some sort of social order inherently. Consider "Lord of the Flies." Think about every time you've been in a new group situation, and "it's like freshman year all over again." Sure, everyone's nice at first, but then eventually things get sorted out, and many of the people you were friendly with at first don't give a hoot about you latter. It's hard-wired. --- As for the Liberterianism/"free markets" hooey, it all sounds great, but it doesn't work. While the market works in many circumstances, there are market failures ("Pigouian Moments") that require government interference in order to prevent people from injuring themselves and others in one way or another. Frequently, this is on account of assymetric information, one of those big externalities, and the reason why Coase Theorem fails. A lack of information increases risk, both from mistakes and actual malice. It's government's role, then, to step in and shield those who don't have access to information sufficient to make informed decisions, because there's no one else that will or can - none of us have enough time or resources to develope expertise on everything that touches our lives, and investing resources into making such determinations frequently is not profitable enough for private industry to pursue. Ever try buying a used car? If you have, you should be grateful there are consumer protection laws in place to prevent dealers from rolling back the odometers like they used to. How about your medications? Thanks to the FDA, you can be 99.9% certain your remedies aren't anything more than snake oil. The government helps dampen the effects of a lack of expertise, and frankly, I think we all benefit from it a lot more than any of us knows. Finally, is there such a thing as a poor libertarian/Libertarian? I've never heard of one. Libertarianism is great if you're rich, because the net benefits of libertarian policies accrue to you. If you're at the other end, on the other hand, well then too bad - no medicine for your child this year! Good thing you have that low wage job at the textile factory making materials for Richie McLibertarian's new fleece jacket, or otherwise you might not even be able to afford that McDonald's for your children that looks so healthy on TV... EDIT: That said, I do agree with the notion that we should be free (for the most part) to do what we want, provided that we're mindful of those same rights in others. However, I'm not really certain what society as a whole would gain from being less regulated over all. Were things really better at the turn of the 20th century? I don't think so. And what are we really missing out on by being taxed and regulated as we are now? Primarily, it's wealthy people only being able to rake in perhaps $2M instead of $2.4M. On the other hand, children whose parents can't afford it are starting to get healthcare, thanks to some innovative state initiatives. [ Saturday, March 31, 2007 12:15: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, March 31 2007 13:17
Profile
Homepage
quote:An amusing Freudian slip, to be sure. Seriously, I'm no fan of the FDA. There are plenty of very effective and quality-of-life-improving drugs that have been pulled from the market either on the FDA's order or due to FDA pressure because they had side effects that killed a few of the people who took them. Drugs for diseases that affect fewer than a few thousand people are practically impossible to develop because the cost of getting FDA approval exceeds the revenue that's ever likely to be generated. I'm not convinced that it should be the government's job to set down a one-size-fits-all formula for what level of risk the public is willing to accept. [ Saturday, March 31, 2007 13:22: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Saturday, March 31 2007 17:44
Profile
My bad - I was typing rather fast and loose. But still, I think the gist of my point stands. It's unfortunate, but one-size-fits-all serves the most people with the greatest need. At least FDA has attempted to meet the needs of individuals with rare diseases; FDA offers ridiculous periods of marketing exclusivity for companies willing to develope "orphan drugs." Until pharmaceutical manufacturers are motivated by something more magnanimous than profit - and that's going to be a long wait - we're going to have to make due with the initiative they take, combined with what incentives the government can provide. As for pulling lifestyle improving-yet-threatening drugs off the market: what are you talking about? Vioxx? It's all well and good, until the patient dies and the family takes action on behalf of the estate. Never pretty, and Merck is getting hosed for it. The alternative is for Congress to make the corporation immune to liability, and that's a horrendous slippery slope to start down. [ Saturday, March 31, 2007 17:45: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, March 31 2007 18:33
Profile
Homepage
quote:It'd certainly be easier to get new drugs to market if safety and effectiveness requirements were laxer. If a disease only affects a couple of thousand people worldwide, is it really still worthwhile to go through a 10-year process of clinical trials on hundreds of animals and people to prove the safety and effectiveness of a drug to treat it? Wouldn't it be better to test it in the field, as it were, and maybe arrange some follow-up studies to see what happens? Medicine is not pure science -- sometimes, getting a drug, any drug, out to people who need treatment and have none is more urgent than knowing for sure whether it works or is safe. quote:Are you familiar with pemoline? It's a drug formerly used for the treatment of narcolepsy and ADHD; a significant minority (tens of thousands) of sufferers of both conditions found that it was the only drug that relieved their symptoms without intolerable side effects. Unfortunately, there have been a couple of hundred cases where it's caused serious adverse effects including about 20 cases of liver failure. Its leading name-brand manufacturer pulled it from the market in 2005, and manufacturers of generic equivalents were soon forced by the FDA to follow suit. Narcolepsy support groups and noted SF author Teresa Nielsen Hayden (who is narcoleptic) have campaigned for the ban on pemoline to be overturned -- the very people who were "protected" by the decision to ban this drug are the ones who want it back on the market. Some patients have turned to illegal and even more dangerous amphetamine derivatives for relief, as no legal drug adequately relieves their symptoms now that pemoline is no longer available. Not a regulatory success story. quote:If the drug contains what it claims to contain and isn't contaminated with anything else, and all known adverse effects are disclosed, the manufacturer shouldn't be liable for what happens to people who take it. Admittedly, those are some pretty big "if"s (especially the last one -- Merck was sued, after all, because of accusations that it was hiding what it knew about Vioxx's risks), but giving consumers the option of using a risky or untested drug at their own risk is better than banning it outright. If the public have an unreasonable expectation that every drug on the market is going to be safe and effective, that's the public's problem. There is simply no way to guarantee that any drug will be safe or effective for a particular patient. If the safety and effectiveness requirements applied to drugs were applied to household tools, foods or practically anything else, half the stuff we use every day would have to be banned. The entire health food industry would be shut down if it had to prove all the claims it made with the same rigour as the pharmaceutical industry is expected to. Maybe that's what you want, but I don't think it's what the people who are actually consuming health food and thus affected by any such ban would want. [ Saturday, March 31, 2007 18:41: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Saturday, March 31 2007 20:29
Profile
Hmmm; isn't liver failure apt to be a progressive thing? If 1% of people develop it after X months on the drug, doesn't that mean that more and more people will develop it the longer they stay on it? And liver failure is pretty nasty. People may naively exaggerate the safety of approved drugs, but a safety level comparable to household tools would already be something for which to be thankful to regulators. Otherwise, ingesting bizarre chemicals is just molecular Russian roulette. [ Saturday, March 31, 2007 20:30: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, March 31 2007 20:58
Profile
Homepage
quote:Not necessarily. With many drugs, liver failure is idiosyncratic; some people can experience life-threatening liver failure after a single dose (although this is rare), while other people can be on the same drug for years and have no problem. In any case, liver function is something that can be monitored and a patient can be advised to try and switch to a different drug if signs of trouble appear. If no other suitable drug is available, the patient might want to continue to take the risk -- if so, it's on their head (or their liver). I think there is a place for safety and efficacy testing -- governments probably shouldn't be funding medical treatments unless there's reasonable evidence that on average they produce more benefit than harm. But if someone chooses to pay for a drug themselves and accept the risks, I don't think it's anyone else's place to stop them. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Saturday, March 31 2007 22:01
Profile
Homepage
quote:Thuryl, would you apply the same reasoning to cigarettes? -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Saturday, March 31 2007 22:20
Profile
quote:I would, and I smoked for 15 or so years. No longer though, but I certainly wouldn't hold anyone but me responsible for sticking a lit cigarette in my mouth and inhaling tens of thousands of times. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, March 31 2007 22:23
Profile
Homepage
quote:I would, and I'd be in good company in doing so; again, the entire legal basis for lawsuits against tobacco companies has been that they attempted to deceive the public about the dangers of their product. If they'd been upfront about the risks as soon as they discovered them, the lawsuits wouldn't be happening. (Of course, they'd also have sold fewer cigarettes.) Of course, with cigarettes there's also the complicating issue of passive smoking, but it's the responsibility of the user rather than the manufacturer to use cigarettes only under circumstances where that won't be a significant issue. In circumstances where normal use of a drug will inevitably affect others besides the user, such as antibiotics (where every time someone uses an antibiotic, an opportunity is presented for antibiotic-resistant bacteria to proliferate, making that antibiotic less useful in future), I think there's a good case to be made for regulation. On a side note, I wonder what it says about the community here that I always get more criticism when I advocate a position that isn't obviously evil. [ Saturday, March 31, 2007 23:00: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Sunday, April 1 2007 05:39
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, there's no point in talking to you when you're obviously trolling. But here, I think people are asking you real questions, not rhetorical ones. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Sunday, April 1 2007 06:21
Profile
Thuryl - Some of us have slightly different views on what is evil. Even when drug manufactuers disclose adverse side effects, they do so in a manner to minimize them. Saying that the effects are only temporary without mentioning that this applies to very short term use and not the long term use that they push for treatment. That the chance of occuring is subdivided into enough catergories to get below 1%. Also you can get placed on a drug with adverse effects against your will and/or legal directive by court order or doctor's order in a hospital or nursing home. Try getting someone off when the drug is not working and there are very obvious adverse reactions occuring. I took one relative out of a nursing home after having this happen. One of the drugs had an FDA warning to discontinue immediately because of health risks if it wasn't working. Since it was an anti-diarrheal medication it was very obvious that it was having no effect. The others were causing brain damage. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |