Survivor 2 Finale (Page 3)

You are on page out of 3 | Reverse Order
Profile picture of StoicGoat
@StoicGoat
14 Years1,000+ Posts
Posted by feby16aqua
Posted by robyn808
What about psychotropic drugs? Don't we currently force people to take these medications beyond they're own will, when someone else determines that they are not mentally stable?



Yes, I believe there is a legal process for that, or if the individual is a minor.
In some cases, the individual does not even know that they are mentally ill and will not take their medication just for that reason alone. What if they are a danger to society or even to themselves?
click to expand


It could be argued that by permitting you to think freely you would be enabled to potentially think of some things that might be dangerous to society, no? Assuming the appropriate legal process was followed, should you then be forcibly medicated to neutralise this potential danger? What implication does your answer have for the alleged right to think freely?
Profile picture of StoicGoat
@StoicGoat
14 Years1,000+ Posts
Posted by feby16aqua
We all have the choice of what we put into our bodies and how we maintain the bodies that we have been given.

In response to a law recently enacted in The States commonly known as Obamacare, many employers are making changes to their healthcare/wellness benefit offerings. Among the most commonly seen changes implemented are hard limits on specific markers such as BMI, cholesterol, blood pressure, etc. over which there is less than universal agreement. If you are required to take cholesterol or blood pressure lowering medication as a condition of maintaining your health insurance, has the right to control your health not been at least partially taken from you?
Profile picture of StoicGoat
@StoicGoat
14 Years1,000+ Posts
Posted by feby16aqua
Posted by StoicGoat
Posted by feby16aqua
We all have the choice of what we put into our bodies and how we maintain the bodies that we have been given.

In response to a law recently enacted in The States commonly known as Obamacare, many employers are making changes to their healthcare/wellness benefit offerings. Among the most commonly seen changes implemented are hard limits on specific markers such as BMI, cholesterol, blood pressure, etc. over which there is less than universal agreement. If you are required to take cholesterol or blood pressure lowering medication as a condition of maintaining your health insurance, has the right to control your health not been at least partially taken from you?



No not really. I still have the right to ingest what I want, exercise how I want and maintain good health for myself. That cannot be touched unless I choose for it to be.
click to expand


For the sake of discussion, let's say that your cholesterol is elevated to a level that you have to take some statin to retain your health insurance or you will be charged a higher premium or lose your insurance. Was your right to choose what you ingest not just neutered? Is it possible for a right to exist in the absence of choice?
Profile picture of StoicGoat
@StoicGoat
14 Years1,000+ Posts
Posted by feby16aqua
Posted by StoicGoat
Posted by feby16aqua
Posted by StoicGoat
Posted by feby16aqua
We all have the choice of what we put into our bodies and how we maintain the bodies that we have been given.

In response to a law recently enacted in The States commonly known as Obamacare, many employers are making changes to their healthcare/wellness benefit offerings. Among the most commonly seen changes implemented are hard limits on specific markers such as BMI, cholesterol, blood pressure, etc. over which there is less than universal agreement. If you are required to take cholesterol or blood pressure lowering medication as a condition of maintaining your health insurance, has the right to control your health not been at least partially taken from you?



No not really. I still have the right to ingest what I want, exercise how I want and maintain good health for myself. That cannot be touched unless I choose for it to be.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that your cholesterol is elevated to a level that you have to take some statin to retain your health insurance or you will be charged a higher premium or lose your insurance. Was your right to choose what you ingest not just neutered? Is it possible for a right to exist in the absence of choice?



Intervention is a choice you make or not for your own perogative.
click to expand



This situation perfectly fits the common law definition of extortion, it just happens to be ok because it is sanctioned by the government. This gets back to the heart of the issue, though, which is: what effect does this have on the human rights you have claimed?
Profile picture of NotYourAverageAquarius
@NotYourAverageAquarius
13 Years5,000+ PostsAquarius
Posted by robyn808
Posted by feby16aqua
Everyone laughs, cries and feels emotions. Whether and how they express it can be different.



Yes but these emotions are felt because of different chemicals and released in our nervous system. So we can effectively change our chemistry, to stop these emotions from being felt. If you don't feel them, then they don't exist.

We are controlling and even eliminating a persons ability to have emotions, with these drugs.

This is a fact. Is it not?
click to expand




Robyn first ask yourself "who took the drug?"

Then ask yourself "Who has control of your body after taking the drug?"
Profile picture of NotYourAverageAquarius
@NotYourAverageAquarius
13 Years5,000+ PostsAquarius
Posted by robyn808
Posted by feby16aqua
Posted by StoicGoat
What implication is it for your right(s) if you are required to consume a medication that impairs your ability to think?



It may impair or even augment your ability to think, but you still think and you still have your own individual thoughts.



But if you can control what someone can't think about by taking away their emotions then, you can argue that someones is taking away your individual thoughts.

Should it be wrong for hospitals to put people in an induced comma without the patience consent? That is a clear instance were a persons ability to think is taken away from them.

Should we interfere and take that right from them to save they're life?
click to expand





Your assuming, how do you know that people don't think while they are in a comma, don't dream, don't anything.
Profile picture of NotYourAverageAquarius
@NotYourAverageAquarius
13 Years5,000+ PostsAquarius
Yes robyn, I'll state three I suppose since they are all outlined in the declaration of human rights except for the original one you posted.

1)Everyone, does have the freedom of thought. Everyone has the power to exercise this right at their own discretion no matter what law is ever passed. I think you do have point Robyn, at least to an extent about psychotropic drugs. But You do retain the use of your brain. And outside of altering your mood... those drugs will never be able to control what a person could think of. If it could it would mean we all could read each others minds, because we all could give each other the drug that would make us think xyg and we would have privy knowledge of it.

2)We all have the right to our own opinion. listing it just because they do in the Declaration of Human Rights which to me goes hand and hand with the first right that I mentioned. I don't know of a drug that can alter peoples opinions?

3)We all have the absolute right and power to exercise our own free will People can tell you what they want you to do. That doesn't mean they can ever make you do it.
Profile picture of NotYourAverageAquarius
@NotYourAverageAquarius
13 Years5,000+ PostsAquarius
Well,

I would like to say thank you to everyone for a less dramatic contest. I'm never opposed to drama after all it is probably one of my favorite movie genres... but doesn't seem conducive to a contest that can already be a bit dramatic I guess. Maybe, it was more boring for some I dunno. I enjoyed myself.. I hope you did the same.

I think I found some people to be quite the debaters when then want to be. Vulcan you are a good debater. I think you just let be known to early. So are you Dimplez. In general I think everyone who played were fairly good debaters. I found it hard to come up with good arguments for some debates... especially the artificial vs real and the moral vs immoral. You ladies gave me a hard time. I tried my best.

I consider myself lucky to have won.
🙂