BF2S Forums 980-Pound Man Needs 'Life-Saving' Operation

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Wreckognize wrote:

What if something outside your control, like say a psychological disorder, prevents you from "earning" the value of your life?

You know what, psychological disorders are all in your mind.. I mean that seriously, if he didn't get cateret to, this would have never been an issue.. The coddling that is going on now a days is fucked up..

Catered to? He weighs 980 pounds and they want to save his life.
They didn't feed him, he fed himself. I fail to see your argument.

Last edited by alexb (2009-10-20 13:18:59)

alexb wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Wreckognize wrote:

What if something outside your control, like say a psychological disorder, prevents you from "earning" the value of your life?

You know what, psychological disorders are all in your mind.. I mean that seriously, if he didn't get cateret to, this would have never been an issue.. The coddling that is going on now a days is fucked up..

Catered to? He weighs 980 pounds and they want to save his life.
They didn't feed him, he fed himself. I fail to see your argument.

Yeah dude a 980 lbs dude is not feeding himself.. It's probably physically impossible for him to get to the door or to the kitchen. In the artical it states that he has 2 people taking care of him..

980lbs and he barely leaves the bed, he's getting governmnet assistance.

Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2009-10-20 13:21:07)

cpt.fass1 wrote:

"But he soon put the weight back on. And in 2007 he complained to his local council that he could not fit his special 3ft-wide wheelchair through the gates of an Ipswich park."

Fuck this asshole.. Fuck him all to hell, I bet you he rolls around on his 3 foot wheelchair looking down at homeless people.

Food is addicting, just like anything else.
Why do both of you think "they" feed him. He chooses to eat the food himself, no one is forcing him to scarf it down.

Last edited by alexb (2009-10-20 13:21:50)

alexb wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

"But he soon put the weight back on. And in 2007 he complained to his local council that he could not fit his special 3ft-wide wheelchair through the gates of an Ipswich park."

Fuck this asshole.. Fuck him all to hell, I bet you he rolls around on his 3 foot wheelchair looking down at homeless people.

Food is addicting, just like anything else.
Why do both of you think "they" feed him. He chooses to eat the food himself, no one is forcing him to scarf it down.

He isn't capable of getting this food by himself.  Others are helping.

So according to you because of his disorder he should just be abandoned? gg

SEREVENT wrote:

So according to you because of his disorder he should just be abandoned? gg

Ok then. At what point does "society" stop wasting money on him?.  Hello Death Panel...  Didn't think state run healthcare had that.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

SEREVENT wrote:

So according to you because of his disorder he should just be abandoned? gg

Ok then. At what point does "society" stop wasting money on him?.  Hello Death Panel...  Didn't think state run healthcare had that.

If you were struck by a vehicle, and couldn't afford the surgery required to survive, you should die.

So that's your logic, am I right?

JohnG@lt wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

"Society" isn't a math problem or a data set.  Government is a social contract we all enter to benefit humanity as a whole.  We don't get to pick and choose which parts of society to support and which to cast away.  You have to take the bad with the good.  Taking the approach that someone is a net benefit or detriment to society takes the human aspect of society away.  Sure there will be people that take advantage of that social contract at all levels of government/society; that's just the nature of the human condition.

You're operating under the assumption that all life is valuable. I disagree. I think the value of ones life is earned over time and is based on the decisions that we make. It's not a zero-sum equation by any means. If you live in a socialist society like England has become then the punishments for 'negative' behavior like this man has shown must be equal to the cost he has on society as a whole. His medical care alone would provide wages for four lower middle class people to live on for a year.

All of you who live within the dream of a socialist utopia don't seem to get that the more anchors you have within your society the poorer you will all become. But hey, I guess you'll all be equally poor.

Well we obviously don't see eye to eye on the assumption that life is only valuable after you prove your value to society.  However, you also seem to be operating under the assumption that England is a socialist society purely because they have social safety-nets.  Socialism isn't all social welfare programs, you know (I'm sure you do ).  We have a fair amount of socialism here in the US too, for better or worse.  A lot of people seem to view socialism of any kind as an absolute negative when that's just plain stupid.  Throwing out a term like socialism to elicit some sort of knee-jerk response or as some sort of vilifying characteristic is a petty debating tool imo.

Hey, the wage of a CEO providing a net detriment to the US economy as a whole could provide great wages to 400 middle class people for a year too, how about railing on about that ?

The downfall of free healthcare:....

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Well we obviously don't see eye to eye on the assumption that life is only valuable after you prove your value to society.  However, you also seem to be operating under the assumption that England is a socialist society purely because they have social safety-nets.  Socialism isn't all social welfare programs, you know (I'm sure you do ).  We have a fair amount of socialism here in the US too, for better or worse.  A lot of people seem to view socialism of any kind as an absolute negative when that's just plain stupid.  Throwing out a term like socialism to elicit some sort of knee-jerk response or as some sort of vilifying characteristic is a petty debating tool imo.

Hey, the combined wages of a CEO providing a net deficit to the US economy as a whole could provide great wages to 400 middle class people for a year too, how about railing on about that ?

CEO pay doesn't bother me. It's not like he twisted anyones arm or forced any company to pay him that money. He earned it and there are very few people in the world that could handle the job successfully. Not all of them earn their pay but the vast majority do otherwise major corporations would collapse every day.

Basic social safety nets also don't bother me. Unemployment benefits are fantastic because they have to be initially earned by the person collecting the check. I'll even agree with Medicaid because it provides basic medical coverage for people working at crappy jobs and for their kids. I don't believe in punishing a child just because he was born into poverty etc. As for something like Welfare, that pays a person to stay home and pump out kids without doing anything to earn it besides existing? Yeah, that's where I draw the line. I believe in earning your social safety net, not being handed it just because you were born.

JohnG@lt wrote:

As for something like Welfare, that pays a person to stay home and pump out kids without doing anything to earn it besides existing? Yeah, that's where I draw the line. I believe in earning your social safety net, not being handed it just because you were born.

Perhaps you shouldn't base your view of welfare on urban myths propagated during the Reagan era.  You can't sit and live on welfare - eventually it runs out.  There are certainly people that take advantage of the social contract that is government at every level.  You seem to be of the kind that rails on and on about the leeches at the bottom instead of the concentrated movement of taxpayer money at the top (which is a much higher total value loss).

Our welfare system is broken, most definitely.  It doesn't provide much of anything to people that need it and allows people that are otherwise capable of working and positively contributing to society a free pass on life.  I just don't think it's appropriate to focus on the smaller piece of the pie that is the transfer of taxpayer wealth to social leeches while neglecting the greater pieces (like the military-industrial complex, loss of manufacturing base in the US over the last 50 years, out of control corporate welfare of the last 20 years, etc.).  I think deriding social welfare as this money-pit behemoth while also failing to acknowledge the larger inadequacies of our current system is a cop-out.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

As for something like Welfare, that pays a person to stay home and pump out kids without doing anything to earn it besides existing? Yeah, that's where I draw the line. I believe in earning your social safety net, not being handed it just because you were born.

Perhaps you shouldn't base your view of welfare on urban myths propagated during the Reagan era.  You can't sit and live on welfare - eventually it runs out.  There are certainly people that take advantage of the social contract that is government at every level.  You seem to be of the kind that rails on and on about the leeches at the bottom instead of the concentrated movement of taxpayer money at the top (which is a much higher total value loss).

Our welfare system is broken, most definitely.  It doesn't provide much of anything to people that need it and allows people that are otherwise capable of working and positively contributing to society a free pass on life.  I just don't think it's appropriate to focus on the smaller piece of the pie that is the transfer of taxpayer wealth to social leeches while neglecting the greater pieces (like the military-industrial complex, loss of manufacturing base in the US over the last 50 years, out of control corporate welfare of the last 20 years, etc.).  I think deriding social welfare as this money-pit behemoth while also failing to acknowledge the larger inadequacies of our current system is a cop-out.

Absolutely. I understand very well that the money spent on Welfare itself is peanuts compared to the rest of the system. I've said in other threads (the one about liberal hypocrisy) that I want the US military shrunk down to a force that is basically special ops troops with all other conventional forces being put to pasture in reserve units that are on call. The amount of money that we spend on our military is staggering and frankly, asinine. We have a very cushy nuclear umbrella, there is no need to have a ridiculous navy or such a large active duty military. I can't tell you how many tens of thousands of tax payer dollars I wasted sitting on active duty during peacetime. I earned my pay in Iraq though