DescentBB

in another thread, the good Sarge noted:
" Rebellion is very bad. As I said, it's destructive. Authority exists for a reason. We can start a topic about it sometime and I will try to explain in more detail (and you will acknowledge that I am right!)."

well, have at it, Thorne. To start the juices flowing, I would suggest that milder forms of rebellion are both necessary and normal(not talking the necessity for violence) and that Authority, while serving some purposes, tends to become corrupted almost every time, due to human nature. Now, continue......

The self is the only authority that fires sure every time you pull the trigger. The idiotic masses don't need to be encaged and forced to follow rules--they're too stupid to do any harm in the first place. By that I mean that the intelligent can easily ignore them and consider them as good as non-existent, to go about their business changing the world. Whether authority in the sense of government exists or not, the creative and intelligent rule society. No need for any further authority--it's in good hands.

so, DoTheGeek, the cream always rises to the top, is that what you are suggesting?

Think of nature Slick. It abhors things that stay the same or stagnant. Nature and the universe are governed by entropy and chaos theory. Since humans are driven by nature and are part of the universe, we will always be forced to alter our situations and lives, because things always change around us whether we want it to or not.

agreed.......by the way, it was I who was arguing the BENEFIT of rebellion.

The top of the world, yes. Not the top of monetary wealth by any means, but money is valueless anyway.

DoTheGeek wrote:The top of the world, yes. Not the top of monetary wealth by any means, but money is valueless anyway.

ok....then PM me for my snail mail address and send me that worthless stuff. I'll put it to some use.

callmeslick wrote:agreed.......by the way, it was I who was arguing the BENEFIT of rebellion.

But what about violent rebellion? War tends to be a messy affair.

sometimes, that is just how it works out. There is a critical mass of wrongs and public opinion that can justify it, under some circumstances. I was, in the original thread, arguing more for a rebellious way of thinking or approaching the status quo.

Kind of a sad commentary on humanity, isn't it? That we have to resort to violence to solve problems that could be fixed if people could just get together and put aside their differences and make those changes. But sometimes people just get pissed off. I guess the idea of compromise and agreeing to terms seems to be a female thing.

Rebellion is a perfectly normal part of life, without it we would all be listening to the music our parents listened to, be married to the people they wanted, and would be doing the jobs they wanted us to be doing.

Going to weigh into this later to the best of my ability (later may be the weekend at the rate I'm going), but in answer to Spidey: Maybe your parents authority did not extend as far as you naively and fearfully thought it did when you chose to throw the baby out with the bathwater and become a total hippy with a go-nowhere job and marry someone who you later divorced? ("you" editorially) My parents were kind of like that. Hey, they'd only been on this earth 40-50 years. Who starts from square-one and gets it right in that much time? There was something in there after all, because they really were trying, they just got some things wrong. The truth is we can't determine what an individual is going to be, but a lot of times we really do have something to offer if only we knew how to offer it without stepping in it. But if the young individual in question rebels and runs off to start all over at square-one... It's unfortunately cyclical.

A refusal to acknowledge over-stepped authority does not constitute being rebellious, IMO, as long as that's where the resistance ends. I would not credit any of the rebellious attitudes or movements in our society with such wisdom or restraint.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:A refusal to acknowledge over-stepped authority does not constitute being rebellious, IMO, as long as that's where the resistance ends.

So basically, anything that gets in your comfort zone is over-stepped authority. Got it. Thanks for the tip.

callmeslick wrote:I would suggest that milder forms of rebellion are both necessary and normal(not talking the necessity for violence) and that Authority, while serving some purposes, tends to become corrupted almost every time, due to human nature. Now, continue......

I'd say that the rebellion is necessary only because the authority is corrupted and needs to be kept in line.

In an ideal situation, the authority would be beyond corruption, and then rebellion would only exist as a form of corruption in the followers.

I think you have the right to challenge authority even if it hasn’t become corrupt. I don’t recognize anything other than facts as absolute. (there is even some wiggle room for the facts)

If a cop tells someone to get out of a burning building, but that person wants to rescue a living being still trapped in the building…should you obey the cop…he’s only doing his job. (no corruption)

This happened to me, and I ignored the cop, until my own life was in danger. (thankfully the cat survived )

Maybe disobeyed is different than rebellion, but I think it makes my point anyway.

The only real problem I have with challenging authority, is if you are doing it just for the hell of it.

Spidey wrote:Rebellion is a perfectly normal part of life, without it we would all be listening to the music our parents listened to, be married to the people they wanted, and would be doing the jobs they wanted us to be doing.

Hear, hear! I shiver at the thought of having to live like my parents and grandparents did in the 1950's......or 40's......or 30's.

Speaking of challenging authority, how about this case? The parents don't want it, the patient doesn't want it, but the hospital wants to force treatment anyway. And guess who picks up the tab?

tunnelcat wrote:Speaking of challenging authority, how about this case? The parents don't want it, the patient doesn't want it, but the hospital wants to force treatment anyway. And guess who picks up the tab?

Oh man... that's a tough one.

tunnelcat wrote:

Spidey wrote:Rebellion is a perfectly normal part of life, without it we would all be listening to the music our parents listened to, be married to the people they wanted, and would be doing the jobs they wanted us to be doing.

Hear, hear! I shiver at the thought of having to live like my parents and grandparents did in the 1950's......or 40's......or 30's.

Speaking of challenging authority, how about this case? The parents don't want it, the patient doesn't want it, but the hospital wants to force treatment anyway. And guess who picks up the tab?

To me it's fair. The parents are putting the child in harms way by not allowing the doctors to give the child chemotherapy. Yes I know it might go against their religious views but in this case I think the parents are just being dumb.

Merlin...

That's part of the thing - they aren't doing it because of their religious views. They are doing it because it was making her miserable.

OK, but I still believe it's the right thing. My ex went through a year of chemo and it hit her hard but it cured her so to me the benefits outweigh the side affects.

I don't know. Even the child didn't want the treatment. It made her sick. That's not taking into account that chemo can permanently wreck havoc on the young, immature cells of a child, making that child potentially miserable or sick with other complications for the rest of that child's life. How old does one have to be to have self-determination when it concerns what goes on with their body?

snoopy wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Speaking of challenging authority, how about this case? The parents don't want it, the patient doesn't want it, but the hospital wants to force treatment anyway. And guess who picks up the tab?

Oh man... that's a tough one.

No it isn't. Since when does a hospital have any authority? This is a simple case. Whoever is concerned at the hospital needs to visit with the parents and make their case. Sounds like they've already got one major burr up their ass in trying to taker her away from the parents, though, so I wouldn't expect the parents to be terribly receptive at this point. ...Stupid people.

CDN_Merlin wrote:The parents are putting the child in harms way by not allowing the doctors to give the child chemotherapy.

That's wrong, Merlin. They are not "putting the child in harms way", they just aren't in agreement with the hospital as to what is best for the child. It is their responsibility.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

CDN_Merlin wrote:The parents are putting the child in harms way by not allowing the doctors to give the child chemotherapy.

That's wrong, Merlin. They are not "putting the child in harms way", they just aren't in agreement with the hospital as to what is best for the child. It is their responsibility.

You can believe anything you want about what treatment or lack thereof is best for yourself, and act on that, and that's just fine. But when you extend those beliefs to a minor under your care, and they're inevitably going to result in that minor's death...that's reckless endangerment. Someone has to step in and act in the child's best interests, because the parents sure as hell aren't.

Look, chemotherapy sucks. It's probably about the worst medical procedure you can go through in terms of what it does to you. But the reason we use it despite that is because, in a lot of cases, it works very well. The type of cancer this girl has responds very well to chemotherapy, and she has a great chance of living pretty much a normal life if she undergoes the full treatment regimen. The fact that her parents would throw that away and condemn her to a horrible death is just fucked-up.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

snoopy wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Speaking of challenging authority, how about this case? The parents don't want it, the patient doesn't want it, but the hospital wants to force treatment anyway. And guess who picks up the tab?

Oh man... that's a tough one.

No it isn't. Since when does a hospital have any authority? This is a simple case. Whoever is concerned at the hospital needs to visit with the parents and make their case. Sounds like they've already got one major burr up their ass in trying to taker her away from the parents, though, so I wouldn't expect the parents to be terribly receptive at this point. ...Stupid people.

What if, instead of withholding chemotherapy, they were withholding food? There's certainly a line where the state should step in and take over for them... so where is that line?

Top Gun wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

CDN_Merlin wrote:The parents are putting the child in harms way by not allowing the doctors to give the child chemotherapy.

That's wrong, Merlin. They are not "putting the child in harms way", they just aren't in agreement with the hospital as to what is best for the child. It is their responsibility.

You can believe anything you want about what treatment or lack thereof is best for yourself, and act on that, and that's just fine. But when you extend those beliefs to a minor under your care, and they're inevitably going to result in that minor's death...that's reckless endangerment. Someone has to step in and act in the child's best interests, because the parents sure as hell aren't.

Look, chemotherapy sucks. It's probably about the worst medical procedure you can go through in terms of what it does to you. But the reason we use it despite that is because, in a lot of cases, it works very well. The type of cancer this girl has responds very well to chemotherapy, and she has a great chance of living pretty much a normal life if she undergoes the full treatment regimen. The fact that her parents would throw that away and condemn her to a horrible death is just ****.

^^

The child is young and incapable of making the best or most informed decision about herself. The parents are cows being obliviously sent to the slaughter --the proper authority has the right to overrule their decisions for what they know is the best for child and parents alike. This is where "freedom" and "rights" become bastardized terms in the American consciousness. Freedom to decide if someone else should have a chance at their own freedom? I don't think so. The intelligent know that they are intelligent, and understand that they have an obligation to exercise force when the will of the stupid threatens it.

Ten years down the line, the girl will be thanking the doctors for making and enforcing the decision they did.

What if the girl screams and yells, and flails about…will you strap her down and stick her with needles. Will you feel justified if she has a heart attack, or develops complications from the treatment?

Honest to god, your premise that the intelligent have the right to rule by force is making my head ache. The idea that someone has the right to force medical care on someone else is barbaric!

And the hypocrisy here is…if that family simply didn’t have the funds to have the procedure, the hospital would send them packing…there would be no outcry…but since the hospital can see those nice fat insurance payments, their eyes light up like Christmas.

And, you CANNOT predict the future!

Money, IMO, has nothing to do with the debate of this thread and is not worthy of consideration. Anyone feeling the passion and life energy to take matters in their own hands because they personally deemed themselves so intelligent as to have the right and obligation to decide for the less intelligent I can almost guarantee is not motivated by money in any one form or another. The greedy don't care about human lives--the compassionate do. You may be referring to hospital policies which are essentially money-suckers in disguise, but I assure you that any individual of an intelligence level I speak of will go out of his/her way to infringe upon hospital policy for the sake of saving someone's life at whatever cost.

If the girl screams and flails about, there is most likely a psychological explanation and matters change not. If she develops complications from treatment... well... it's time to try to treat those treatment mishaps while running the risk of causing further complications. Because a person's life is more valuable than they themselves will ever know. I can't think of a complication that is more undesirable than death.

Who the hell gave the intelligent the right to rule over the stupid…and by force no less…oh, never mind you already said they did…

Lol

I can’t take you seriously….sorry.

I deem myself to be VERY intelligent, but I know that another man has the right to kick my ass if I take it upon myself to determine what is best for those under his care. In that case I have overstepped my authority. The key thing here is that he is not doing harm to his daughter. That is an invention of your minds. Spidey is right--you don't know the future. He's also right that this would not be an issue if there were no funding. Why don't you hypocritical bastards concern yourself with the hundreds of cases which I'm sure exist in this world where people live with cancer for lack of opportunity or money, rather than the one which determines that a certain treatment is not what they want for their daughter. Is life really so sacred to you, or are you just jumping on the big brother bandwagon to blithely infringe on parent's rights to determine the best course for their children. Don't think that I'm blowing this out of proportion--this same kind of thinking could be used as justification to ban homeschooling just as easily. Hell, you lot could prosecute for pre-crime.

As for DoTheGeek, you may allow the intelligent ambitious to rule you over there, but not all of us have fallen so far over here. The truth is that even if you overstep your bounds and force your way upon someone because you think you know better, you've still crossed a line. The ends do not necessarily justify the means just because you've imagined so. Taking someone's child out of their care is a very extreme measure. I'm quite sure that just about everyone in this thread is thinking very irresponsibly. Maybe you were programmed to think this is the obvious next step or something...

Spidey wrote:Who the hell gave the intelligent the right to rule over the stupid…and by force no less…oh, never mind you already said they did…

Lol

I can’t take you seriously….sorry.

The intelligent gave the intelligent the right. Do you not realize how much more of a miserable ★■◆● hole this world would be if the intelligent didn't take command with their better judgment at their side as they feel obligated? Have you watched the movie Idiocracy?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:He's also right that this would not be an issue if there were no funding. Why don't you hypocritical bastards concern yourself with the hundreds of cases which I'm sure exist in this world where people live with cancer for lack of opportunity or money, rather than the one which determines that a certain treatment is not what they want for their daughter.

That is a side effect of the bureaucratic system of healthcare and entirely out of the control of anyone with willpower. The machine does not represent the will of anyone, only the monotonous hum of the averaging of the whole human orgy. Where people who could potentially step out of their official authoritative bounds for the better don't is in which cases they are scared to--scared of a lawsuit, scared of the system...

Is life really so sacred to you, or are you just jumping on the big brother bandwagon to blithely infringe on parent's rights to determine the best course for their children.

The former.

As for DoTheGeek, you may allow the intelligent ambitious to rule you over there, but not all of us have fallen so far over here. The truth is that even if you overstep your bounds and force your way upon someone because you think you know better, you've still crossed a line. The ends do not necessarily justify the means just because you've imagined so. Taking someone's child out of their care is a very extreme measure. I'm quite sure that just about everyone in this thread is thinking very irresponsibly. Maybe you were programmed to think this is the obvious next step or something...

i fail to see a reason expounded upon for what this paragraph suggests. Why is it crossing a line? Because it goes against the founding ideas of constitutional rights? ★■◆● the constitution. It's a valuable and necessary document that keeps the general hum in proper order, but it is designed to be infringed upon by people of better judgment.

Human progress would not happen did people not step out of their bounds. Think of it as an analogy of the basic premise of The Right Stuff, and if you haven't seen that movie or read the book, PLEASE do.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I deem myself to be VERY intelligent, but I know that another man has the right to kick my ass if I take it upon myself to determine what is best for those under his care. In that case I have overstepped my authority. The key thing here is that he is not doing harm to his daughter. That is an invention of your minds.

For the record, in this case I think the parents should be allowed to make their choices without intervention. I also hope that if the treatment is forced and the child still dies the social worker/doctor gets their pants sued off of them.

But... I also think you're missing something Thorne... I still want to know where the line should be the justifies intervention. Let me give you some case scenarios:

1. A child is observed to be severely underweight, has bruises covering 90% of their body, and has cigarette burns covering 90% of their body
2. A child is observed to be severely underweight, has no markings, but the child says "daddy says no dinner because I've been bad"
3. A child has lesions/damage indicating sexual abuse
4. A 10 year old child is home schooled, but doesn't know how to read yet
5. A child has some illness that's 99.9% guaranteed to be cured with a simple round on antibiotics, 99.9% fatal without; parents say no it's against their beliefs
6. The OP
7. Parents choose not to send their child to the "super-awesome-genius-infant" club for brain enrichment that's "doctor certified" to make you 0-3 mo old smarter


I think I mentioned earlier that maybe the line is active vs. passive harm.... I don't know if that's 100% perfect, but that might be where I'd start.

snoopy wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I deem myself to be VERY intelligent, but I know that another man has the right to kick my ass if I take it upon myself to determine what is best for those under his care. In that case I have overstepped my authority. The key thing here is that he is not doing harm to his daughter. That is an invention of your minds.

For the record, in this case I think the parents should be allowed to make their choices without intervention. I also hope that if the treatment is forced and the child still dies the social worker/doctor gets their pants sued off of them.

But... I also think you're missing something Thorne... I still want to know where the line should be the justifies intervention. Let me give you some case scenarios:

1. A child is observed to be severely underweight, has bruises covering 90% of their body, and has cigarette burns covering 90% of their body
2. A child is observed to be severely underweight, has no markings, but the child says "daddy says no dinner because I've been bad"
3. A child has lesions/damage indicating sexual abuse
4. A 10 year old child is home schooled, but doesn't know how to read yet
5. A child has some illness that's 99.9% guaranteed to be cured with a simple round on antibiotics, 99.9% fatal without; parents say no it's against their beliefs
6. The OP
7. Parents choose not to send their child to the "super-awesome-genius-infant" club for brain enrichment that's "doctor certified" to make you 0-3 mo old smarter


I think I mentioned earlier that maybe the line is active vs. passive harm.... I don't know if that's 100% perfect, but that might be where I'd start.

concurred with. The answer is there is no line. Or otherwise worded, the responsible intelligence decides whether or not (s)he is overstepping the boundary based on his/her personal judgment.

My first question would be, what kind of intervention are we talking about? In almost every case I've heard of "intervention" means they pull the kid away from the parents. That kind of seems to be the preference for these folks. Personally I feel you could hold people to a basic standard of responsibility without infringing on their rights and authority as a parent, unless the child's life is in imminent danger (court ruling determines they'll be dead in a matter of weeks).

My second question, in order to take this back to where I think it needs to start, is what authority is this that is being used to take children away from their parents, and where is it derived from? Anyone who answers "intelligence" gets an "F-".

I think the best reply to all of your arguments, DoTheGeek, is that "intelligence" rules is subject to gross abuses. Supposedly, Hitler was the intelligent one in his time. Unfortunately the intelligence of the time was amoral and ultimately inaccurate. He claimed the the jews were bringing the gene pool down with inferior, less evolved genetics. Recognition of God-given, individual rights is the only way to prevent abuse--the founders of America had it right, and this is why certain principles of the constitution cannot be superseded by so-called "intelligence".

DoTheGeek wrote: I can't think of a complication that is more undesirable than death.

You've never had or seen someone who's had, chemotherapy and radiation, have you? Not only is it NOT guaranteed to work 100% of the time, it causes great suffering for the patient. I've personally witnessed what it does to a person's body. It makes a person so sick, they almost WANT to die. It's like taking a sledge hammer to kill a fly. The collateral damage to the rest of the body is awful. On top of that, IF it ends up not curing the cancer, the patient has spent the last couple of their remaining years suffering under their doctor's supposed care before they do die. NO ONE should be forced to take chemo and radiation against their will, including a child. Those "treatments" also irreparably damage a child's body and cells for life, called late effects, creating life long complications and possible misery. And despite what you think, money IS involved. It's extremely expensive to treat cancer. It's one of the major reasons our health care is so expensive in this country. I'm betting those parents don't have the cash or insurance to pay for it themselves, so the public is going to eat the cost.

tunnelcat wrote:You've never had or seen someone who's had, chemotherapy and radiation, have you?

My dad went through seven months of it. Radiation every day and chemo every 2 weeks. I was living with him the whole time and drove him to and from treatments.

Not only is it NOT guaranteed to work 100% of the time, it causes great suffering for the patient. I've personally witnessed what it does to a person's body. It makes a person so sick, they almost WANT to die. It's like taking a sledge hammer to kill a fly. The collateral damage to the rest of the body is awful. On top of that, IF it ends up not curing the cancer, the patient has spent the last couple of their remaining years suffering under their doctor's supposed care before they do die. NO ONE should be forced to take chemo and radiation against their will, including a child. Those "treatments" also irreparably damage a child's body and cells for life, called late effects, creating life long complications and possible misery.

You're preaching to the choir, except that I would disagree that the person wants to die in every case. My dad never lost his will to live. Granted I'm sure he didn't receive the most extreme doses available, but his tumor was stage 4.

And despite what you think, money IS involved. It's extremely expensive to treat cancer. It's one of the major reasons our health care is so expensive in this country. I'm betting those parents don't have the cash or insurance to pay for it themselves, so the public is going to eat the cost.

I never said money wasn't involved. If you re-read my words, I said that the funding aspect is beyond the control of any one person's will. And do you see something wrong with the public eating the cost?

I do, however, retract the statement you quoted. The one case I can think of where a complication is not worth living through is such as Alzheimer's where the person's brain slowly degenerates until death. My grandmother died of it and I witnesses how she gradually lost her ability to think and make decisions for herself, getting worse and worse every day until finally just dying. It runs in my mother's side of the family, and my mom has made clear that if she ever contracts it, she wants her family to step in and do the responsible thing, which is invoke assisted suicide. I take her request very seriously.

I'll add that the "intelligence" of our day dictates that the world population must be decreased so drastically that nothing short of a global holocaust or wide-spread plague could accomplish it. Imagine my willingness to rely on them for anyone's well-being going forward...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'll add that the "intelligence" of our day dictates that the world population must be decreased so drastically that nothing short of a global holocaust or wide-spread plague could accomplish it. Imagine my willingness to rely on them for anyone's well-being going forward...

What are you talking about? The intelligence does not and should not dictate such a thing and I haven't a slightest clue why you might think so.