Overly Pessimistic (IM) Preceptor...are all doctors like this?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
The argument for liberalism is always "that not how a society should function." That's the justification for welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, healthcare, unemployment benefits, pensions, and so on. Wow, you have to earn money or be poor? Not in my America!! If you get drunk you might die after aspirating on your own vomit? No, sir, I will make it safe for you to repeatedly get drunk! That's the America I live in! Now pay up, I need some money for my asinine plans.

Oh, bonus points for his discussion on how the police are the enemy of the people. Why can't they just leave us alone to get high?? Fight the police!
Travel some. When you go outside of this country, and start realizing that just about anywhere else you visit the people are more free than they are at home, and that we have one of the most oppressive criminal justice, legal, and tax systems in the world, it really will start to get to you too. This should be the most free country in the world. Instead we have the highest incarceration rate in the world, putting Russia, China, and every dictatorship on the planet to shame. Do you not see something wrong with that? 1 in every 100 Americans is in prison RIGHT NOW. We tax our citizens and enforce many of our laws on them no matter where they go in the world. It's crazy in what is supposedly the Land of the Free. 92.1% of federal offenders are nonviolent, while 47.6% of state offenders are nonviolent. This is, again, a waste of resources. It always amuses me how people on the right seem to think giving a poor kid an education so they don't turn to crime is this awful injustice, but incarcerating him to the tune of $100k a year once he turns to selling drugs because it's the only opportunity he sees is a totally sound way to do things. This country is really messed up right now. A lot of it is the PC, do what you want socially but screw the man and take his cash individualism of the left that disregards the fact we have to live as a united nation, and a lot of it is the same crap on the right, except it's do what you want fiscally but constrain yourself socially. We need to have a balance in this country, or the great structures that have led to America's rise will disentigrate as we give up the American "we" for the 21st century mantra of "me."

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
See, the problem is you are NOT a utilitarian. You're a utilitarian with bleeding heart requirements. In other words, you say "I demand drunks be taken care of ...so with that in mind, NOW I'm a utilitarian." That's not being a utilitarian, that's being a liberal.
Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. Classic utilitarianism's two most influential contributors are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. John Stuart Mill in his book Utilitarianism, stated, "In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality."

You don't understand utilitarianism if you believe my views are incompatible with this.
 
It always amuses me how people on the right seem to think giving a poor kid an education so they don't turn to crime is this awful injustice, but incarcerating him to the tune of $100k a year once he turns to selling drugs because it's the only opportunity he sees is a totally sound way to do things.

We do give a poor kid an education. I can't help it that you agree with me that our teachers suck. Also, you're right, we shouldn't incarcerate people for $100K a year, it should be more like for $5K year. That is, a concrete cell and some food. So we're in agreement there, too.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.

Sure, YOU can do that, but once you demand that I do it, then you're a liberal. You need to understand your own concepts better.
 
We do give a poor kid an education. I can't help it that you agree with me that our teachers suck. Also, you're right, we shouldn't incarcerate people for $100K a year, it should be more like for $5K year. That is, a concrete cell and some food. So we're in agreement there, too.
Prison funding should be more efficient, but we should also incarcerate far less people. By what means do you justify our high incarceration rates and long sentences?

And how do you justify society not giving a damn about those in need? Many of these people could be reformed, suffer from mental illness, or are normal people that have fallen on hard times. I would like you to spell out for me, for each of the three groups, why it's okay for us to not give a ****.

Also, Mexico is in North America. I said South America. Lrn2geography, holmes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
By what means do you justify our high incarceration rates and long sentences?

It's hard for me to answer that question since I think our incarceration rates are too low and our sentences too short.

And how do you justify society not giving a damn about those in need? Many of these people could be reformed, suffer from mental illness, or are normal people that have fallen on hard times.

Great, then voluntarily contribute to private charities or volunteer to help them. That's conservative. When you force people to contribute and, in actuality, do so in order to support thousands of people in bureaucracies, you're liberal. The end. The fact that YOU want something only means that YOU want it, not that anyone else must fund it. YOU fund it, "holmes."
 
That's an inane way of thinking and the reason we're broke as a nation. You personally are like "hey, whatever, she shows up and I do whatevs and then she ignores me and I get paid." That would be fine if SHE was paying you for each visit, but she's not paying anything. She's spending, for example, my money and so are you.

Then you think you have that covered by expressing an indifferent "whatever society wants" statement followed by "I have nothing to do with that." Except that society is kept separated from it, too, which is why people vote the way they do. In other words, if voters were given bills and statements saying "you owe $35 as your part to pay for Ms. Crackhead's 50th ER visit this year, we expect payment within 60 days," they'd all rebel. Currently, nobody actually feels any impact at all because we just go into debt as much as we want. Therefore, you're free to vote for your "feeelings" and go "awwww, everyone deserves free healthcare, awwww." Similarly, that's why we have tax withholding, so most people don't realize how much they pay in taxes because they never see the money. If we forced people to, on April 15th, write a lump-sum check of $15,000 or even $100,000 or $3 million to the government, people would immediately rebel against liberalism.

Hey, whatever, you say whatevs and then we all ignore you, and you go away Mr. Troll.
 
Hey, whatever, you say whatevs and then we all ignore you, and you go away Mr. Troll.

Sure, you can ignore me but that doesn't change the fact that you're part of the problem.
 
Sure, YOU can do that, but once you demand that I do it, then you're a liberal. You need to understand your own concepts better.
You are very special. I'll leave you to interpret that how you will.

Liberalism is a very particular political view. Utilitarianism is a very particular philosophy. You clearly never took (or just didn't learn from) philosophy, politics, or economics in college though, so I understand that these concepts must be quite confusing for you. How exactly is utilitarianism liberal? Are you saying the belief that we, as a society, have obligations to one another is liberal? Because both conservatism and liberalism believe these things, just in different ways. They have different obligations. Utilitarianism fits with neither philosophy particularly well, but that is something you clearly don't understand, you just see "care about fellow man" and think "lefty liberal commie bastard." It's no wonder you can't find a girlfriend, you're about as abrasive and incapable of understanding others as they come.

I guess it's time to click the ignore button, because if I pay the troll toll too many times, I'll probably get a ban.
 
How exactly is utilitarianism liberal? Are you saying the belief that we, as a society, have obligations to one another is liberal? Because both conservatism and liberalism believe these things, just in different ways.

Ooo, you're getting closer! Good. And how are the ways different?
 
By the way, I just saw an uninsured guy who keeps coming to the ER for biliary colic. I told him I wasn't operating on him, so he said "fine, then I'll keep coming back until you do." So I said, "fine, and we won't do any testing or imaging and I'll keep billing you and wrecking your credit." So he changed his mind.
 
Ooo, you're getting closer! Good. And how are the ways different?
As to your calling of everyone that disagrees with you a "liberal"
inigo-montoya-you-keep-using-that-word-i-dont-think-it-means-what-you-th-3b4b2920-sz625x625-animate.jpg

Goodnight sweet troll. I really hope you are faking this, because the idea that a person as terribly selfish and confused about the principles by which a society exists can actually be out there in a position of power where a community depends upon him somewhere kind of sickens me.

America was founded on British ethical traditions, which are an extension of the work of Hobbes, Christian ethics, and utilitarianism. Your views on ethics completely lack a historical framework to justify their application to American social traditions. You sound like a nihilist, which is quite un-American.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/194023/ethics/252514/The-history-of-Western-ethics
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Ooo, I guess he couldn't think of the difference, so he just started calling me "selfish" and then posted an Internet GIF. That's not liberal at all.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Oh, and now he's saying I'm opposed to British ethical traditions. Uh oh! National Health System, save me!!

By the way, in case that went over everyone's heads, the current British system (and the current American system) has no basis in their traditions. Both are recent changes that completely ignore British and American systems. Both Britain and America are traditionally very opposed to socialism and communism, which both are approaching today. Ironic, huh?
 
You are very special. I'll leave you to interpret that how you will.

Liberalism is a very particular political view. Utilitarianism is a very particular philosophy. You clearly never took (or just didn't learn from) philosophy, politics, or economics in college though, so I understand that these concepts must be quite confusing for you. How exactly is utilitarianism liberal? Are you saying the belief that we, as a society, have obligations to one another is liberal? Because both conservatism and liberalism believe these things, just in different ways. They have different obligations. Utilitarianism fits with neither philosophy particularly well, but that is something you clearly don't understand, you just see "care about fellow man" and think "lefty liberal commie bastard." It's no wonder you can't find a girlfriend, you're about as abrasive and incapable of understanding others as they come.

I guess it's time to click the ignore button, because if I pay the troll toll too many times, I'll probably get a ban.

Fox News junkies with anger and resentment issues only know of two groups. "Us" and "liberals". A world of technicolor views taxes their minds. You say something that is outside the "us" box and you're gonna be labeled a liberal. Even if you just don't give a flea about the issue he's addressing one way or another...then he'll still attack you as a liberal. It's his MO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Fox News junkies with anger and resentment issues only know of two groups. "Us" and "liberals". You say something that is outside the "us" box and you're gonna be labeled a liberal. Even if you just don't give a flea about the issue he's addressing one way or another...then he'll still attack you as a liberal. It's his MO.

Yeah, it's odd how I call people liberal when they feel that society has to provide for people and disagreement is selfish. That's probably just because I watch Fox News and not because I'm right or anything. SO TRUE.
 
Oh, and now he's saying I'm opposed to British ethical traditions. Uh oh! National Health System, save me!!

By the way, in case that went over everyone's heads, the current British system (and the current American system) has no basis in their traditions. Both are recent changes that completely ignore British and American systems. Both Britain and America are traditionally very opposed to socialism and communism, which both are approaching today. Ironic, huh?
Prove your views are compatible with traditional Western ethics. And the selfish comment was not an insult, it was a truth.

Defend yourself, as I have already defended myself. You just state opinions without backing them up with the historical reasons behind them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveridge_Report

No British political party was opposed to the creation of the welfare state because it was in line with British societal ideals. The conservative, liberal, AND labour party all voted for the creation of the welfare state, with the last holdout being labour, not due to disagreeing that it should occur, but due to a disagreement over whether it should be locally or centrally organized. Communism and socialism are not equal. The British have ALWAYS believed in socialism, with the conservative party believing in less of it and the liberal party believing in more of it. Communism, the central planning and state operation of the economy, is what they have never believed in. You know nothing about history or the difference between political and economic systems and are quite frankly embarassangly ignorant on the topics which you feel so strongly about. My bet is you've never touched a book that deals with history, philosophy, or ethics in your life.
 
By the way, this is what Anastamoses looks like in real life:

Itchy-Scalp.jpg
 
Oh, this should go without saying, but it looks like it needs to be explicitly written: both Britain and the United States have existed for longer than forty years.
 
Sure. Go back before the 1970s and traditional Western ethics were conservative. The end.
What conservatives believe ethics were and what they actually were are two very different things. I want you to back this up with actual writings from the founding of our country up until the 1950s. The rise of the modern anti-government and corporate funded right began in the 1960s on the basis of arguments that had no grounding in historical Western ethics. Prove your point with documents and historical evidence, not Fox Newsy opinions.
 
What conservatives believe ethics were and what they actually were are two very different things. I want you to back this up with actual writings from the founding of our country up until the 1950s. The rise of the modern anti-government and corporate funded right began in the 1960s on the basis of arguments that had no grounding in historical Western ethics. Prove your point with documents and historical evidence, not Fox Newsy opinions.

Oh, suddenly we're not talking about "British traditions." Now we moved to some irrelevant discussion about "British ethics since the 1960s."
 
By the way, I bet you think that welfare is "ethical," correct?
 
By the way, I bet you think that welfare is "ethical," correct?
Stop deflecting and answer my questions. I don't have time to craft a well thought out response to every one of the logical fallacies and debate faux pas you commit. I'll write you something on welfare after you write me something of substance.
 
Stop deflecting and answer my questions. I don't have time to craft a well thought out response to every one of the logical fallacies and debate faux pas you commit. I'll write you something on welfare after you write me something of substance.

The only person deflecting is you, kiddo. After all, you made some false claim about how your demands that society provide for people is rooted in British traditions and now you're saying some gibberish about "ethics since the 1960s." Oh, also when I asked you to tell me the difference between conservatism and liberalism, you started talking about me being single. No deflection there!
 
Oh, suddenly we're not talking about "British traditions." Now we moved to some irrelevant discussion about "British ethics since the 1960s."
Your ability to understand verbal arguments appears to be impaired. I stated that your views are out of line with traditional American and British values, and that you will not find a credible source that supports your views that existed prior to the 1960s.
 
Your ability to understand verbal arguments appears to be impaired. I stated that your views are out of line with traditional American and British values, and that you will not find a credible source that supports your views that existed prior to the 1960s.

Given that there have been no verbal arguments, your attempt at a retort fails badly. Unsurprising.
 
By the way, everyone, to buy Mad Jack's premise that current belief in socialism is supported historically, you'd have to immediately ask why it wasn't done. I mean, if you were making sense and not just making up stuff.
 
Given that there have been no verbal arguments, your attempt at a retort fails badly. Unsurprising.
I straight up asked you multiple times to defend your view that your ethics are compatible with traditional Western ethics and social philosophy. Please post where you clearly asked me what the difference between conservatism and liberalism was, because you literally never did.
 
I straight up asked you multiple times to defend your view that your ethics are compatible with traditional Western ethics and social philosophy. Please post where you clearly asked me what the difference between conservatism and liberalism was, because you literally never did.

Yeah, actually, I did. It's right on this page, kiddo.

Also, to add: his form of "historical" argumentation is like most liberals. If you say we should have no Social Security, they act like everyone will die and you go "oh, how did we do it before Social Security?" and there's a lot of confusion like "what, there was a time when we didn't have Social Security? No!! Did Fox News say that?"
 
By the way, everyone, to buy Mad Jack's premise that current belief in socialism is supported historically, you'd have to immediately ask why it wasn't done. I mean, if you were making sense and not just making up stuff.
Utilitarian ideals require a society in which adequate or excess resources exist. Until the post WWII period, this was not the case. Once we became nations of excess production (Britain and the United States), the ethical question became, "what do we do with this excess?" Using views that were based on historical ethical thought, Britain came up with the "Great Evils" that society should stamp out. The NHS was created in response to some of these perceived evils, at the behest of all parties in 1945. The United States decided Social Security and Medicare for the elderly were worthwhile endeavors. While I disagree with how these programs operate, they are fully in-line with Western ethical principles, which are extremely complicated and stretch quite far back. I linked to an article that covers the history of Western ethical thought that summarises these foundational beliefs, which take up way more space than a couple SDN posts allows.
 
Yeah, actually, I did. It's right on this page, kiddo.

Also, to add: his form of "historical" argumentation is like most liberals. If you say we should have no Social Security, they act like everyone will die and you go "oh, how did we do it before Social Security?" and there's a lot of confusion like "what, there was a time when we didn't have Social Security? No!! Did Fox News say that?"
Quote the post because I don't see it on this page.
 
Utilitarian ideals require a society in which adequate or excess resources exist. Until the post WWII period, this was not the case.

That's not actually true, but it sounds so eloquent!!

Bonus: Now you can start British history in the 1940s!!! Hooray!!
 
As to your calling of everyone that disagrees with you a "liberal"
inigo-montoya-you-keep-using-that-word-i-dont-think-it-means-what-you-th-3b4b2920-sz625x625-animate.jpg

Wait, you said this before I made my last post about how he calls everyone who disagrees a "bleeding heart liberal"? hahaha.

rural, I'd put your kind and the bleeding liberals and everyone with an IQ under that of a pig on the same piece of land and wouldn't care if you died or lived. Do you understand the difference yet? Oh, and everyone heinously ugly with an IQ under 100. No offense to the ugly people.
 
rural, I'd put your kind and the bleeding liberals and everyone with an IQ under that of a pig on the same piece of land and wouldn't care if you died or lived. Do you understand the difference yet? Oh, and everyone heinously ugly with an IQ under 100. No offense to the ugly people.

But the problem is me and those people would "magically" become wealthy and prosperous while you and the "smart" people all slowly died with oddly-itchy scalps. And that would make you mad.
 
Yeah, it's odd how I call people liberal when they feel that society has to provide for people and disagreement is selfish. That's probably just because I watch Fox News and not because I'm right or anything. SO TRUE.

I'm trying really really hard not to call you a ***** right now. When did I or the Porfiro poster say that we need to provide for people? I don't even feel that way so why in the world are you saying such an idiotic thing? I'm probably more selfish than you, *****. Other than my family and my close friends, I don't care honestly if the rest of you - outside the street sweepers, the plumbers, the technicians, mechanics, and the useful folk stay alive. Stop assuming things. It only reveals how dumb you are.

"Better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
 
I'm trying really really hard not to call you a ***** right now. ...I'm probably more selfish than you, *****.

Good effort! And isn't that the most important thing? Yeah. You get a medal. "Most Lice In Single Head Of Hair."
 
Good effort! And isn't that the most important thing? Yeah. You get a medal. "Most Lice In Single Head Of Hair."
Sorry, that's the alcohol. I'm in Dubai. I'm not sure if the fact that I'm on SDN while I'm at a party in Dubai is weird or just...sad. Or just indicative of how unappealing the crowd of posh unsophisticated Arab boys sitting with 5 Russian prostitutes really is. It's anyone's guess.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
By the way, I bet you think that welfare is "ethical," correct?

Nope. I think it's an opiate orchestrated by rich dinguses who placate a good portion of people to keep them docile and keep a revolution from happening in their front yard. Very cleverly done, I might add given the average person is footing the bill. Down with welfare.

Wait...but I'm okay with educating the underprivileged if they show potential or giving sums to those who can prove congenital disabilities. Yes, I guess I have a dirty little conscience after all. So that might be welfare in your mind...in my mind it's developing the fruit of a nation. Your mind might not actually be able to grasp such forward thinking.

But the problem is me and those people would "magically" become wealthy and prosperous while you and the "smart" people all slowly died with oddly-itchy scalps. And that would make you mad.

You're probably not gonna believe me but...um, I'd wish you all the best. Just keep away from all the rest of us "liberals". That would be thanks enough.
 
Last edited:
No, just read the posts.
I did, it isn't there. You never explicitly asked that question, and I cannot even find a place where you implied it. In any case, welcome to Ignoresville, population you. Like, only you. You cannot actually defend your points so you beat around the bush constantly, it's annoying as hell. I don't mind debating people that actually have a sound basis for their positions, but you are just ignorant. You're the only person I've ever been annoyed by enough to ignore on SDN, and that says a lot. Also, there is a really easy way to find your way out of being single, that I would love to share with you, but I really loathe the thought of you ever breeding, so I'll keep that one to myself.
 
Nope. I think it's an opiate orchestrated by rich dinguses who placate a good portion of people to keep them docile and keep a revolution from happening in their front yard. Very cleverly done, I might add given the average person is footing the bill. Down with welfare.

Lol, she's against welfare because it's just used to placate the poor. In other words, she's not "liberal" because she thinks welfare is bad ...because it's not enough. That's like saying Obama is a moderate, isn't it?
 
Oh ****, I might die" and guess who they start to blame? YOU didn't *really* tell them how serious things were. YOU didn't force them to take their medication/have surgery/get the test etc.

Interesting article on medscape today about this topic and how documenting noncompliance doesn't keep you from losing in court if a patient doesn't take their recommended treatment.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/818850
 
Interesting article on medscape today about this topic and how documenting noncompliance doesn't keep you from losing in court if a patient doesn't take their recommended treatment.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/818850

You need an account to read it. By the way, whoever made that lawsuit should be killed, along with the lawyers and judge.
 
But the problem is me and those people would "magically" become wealthy and prosperous while you and the "smart" people all slowly died with oddly-itchy scalps. And that would make you mad.
Lol, she's against welfare because it's just used to placate the poor. In other words, she's not "liberal" because she thinks welfare is bad ...because it's not enough. That's like saying Obama is a moderate, isn't it?

See what I mean about you being a *****? I barely care about welfare...I'd just rather not pay for it. I don't care really why it's being used unless it actually creates some potential benefit to the society as a whole - but I do think only wealthy businessmen and politicians benefit from placation of the poor...not me. Now if I was a Rockafeller and my future children and grandchildren depend on this stability, I might have more appreciation for it. Are you just subconsciously addicted to conflict and rebuking others? You have some issues to look into.
 
Top