knapplc wrote:Madison wrote:You've answered none of my questions, so I boiled it all down to just one. And that's because I'm trying to figure out if you're avoiding answers because you don't want to sound harsh, or if it's because you don't want to sound like a hypocrite. I mean if you think a parent should be allowed to let their kid to suffer through a broken neck with no medical treatment, that's pretty harsh. If you think the parents should be required to get that same kid with the broken neck medical treatment, then you're being a hypocrite when it comes to this kid and his cancer.
I'm not going to skewer you for either answer (usually I'm on the "harsh" side and that's why I get slammed all over the boards, but I still answer those questions), I'm just curious as to which one it is.
The third option is that your questions are straw men and not directed to the point of the conversation, and that's why I chose to move on. But hey - thanks for playing.
It's not a straw man at all. My question is quite valid. But if you don't have it in you to answer that simple question, then so be it.
knapplc wrote:Madison wrote:knapplc wrote:I don't know where this idyllic concept of some beaming, benevolent government has come from, but it's not reality, that much I can tell you.
And the government being out to get all of us isn't reality either.
And that's why it's a good thing that concept is your construct, not mine. Pretending that's what I meant doesn't mean that's what I meant. I've been very soberly talking about the real government that I interact with on a daily basis. Your response has been "tin foil hats" and "I know a lobbyist who knows some government guys."
The government botches things, the government is overly burdensome, and the government is inept. Pretending that THIS TIME the government is going to rise above their track record puts you in the category of the "beamin, benevolent government" types.
Of the two of us, I'm the one who's sat in the oncologist's office being given the reality of chemo. Of the two of us, I'm the one who's sat in a government office for the past eight years. Guess who's got a better grasp on the situation.
Who's running around talking about "ill-trained" doctors and "Big Brother"? That would be you. I've been very frank and upfront. And if you're going to cry out about the government being out to get all of us, you better believe I'm going to be talking about tin foil hats. Takes one heck of an ego to think the government really cares about any of us on an individual level and I don't have an ego big enough for that.
Anyway, I can go the same route and get silly with you about a lot of what you said, but I like you and I'm trying not to do that. All I want is to hear a straight answer. I'll ask once more just in case the question was unclear:
Should parents be required to get their kid medical attention if he suffers a broken neck?
Just a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. Got it in you to answer?
knapplc wrote:acsguitar wrote:I don't get the government out to get you stuff. I mean they are actually trying to help someone here not hurt them.
Maybe Madison can explain it, since he's the one who came up with that tangent.
Actually no, I got it from the very beginning. You don't think we should set the precedent because a tiny percentage of the government might be corrupt. And while I don't doubt that's true, living your life worrying about that tiny percentage is a bit much, so I offer a tin foil hat.
knapplc wrote:acsguitar wrote:You seem more concerned about the precedence set (i'm saying this not in an accusatory way btw).
I've been standing on my keyboard shouting that this whole time. Thank you for listening. I am more concerned about the precedent than this child. This child is one child. A precedent affects all children. That is what I'm concerned about.
Yep, this precedent would save the lives of 19 out of every 20 children that have cancer and stupid parents. And we just can't have that!