Incest was not taboo
2007.06.12 2:40
Incest was forbidden because it was the easiest way for mating. Probably before civilisation, many humans kept on practicing this for too many years. Incest became taboo mainly from economic reasons. Suppose if we got married to one of our parents, we can inherit their property. But remember we can automatically inherit their property because we are their child, so we don't have to get married to them in order only to inherit their property.
If we got married to a person from other family, we can inherit property that belongs to other family. From the same reason even if we got married to one of siblings, we find no economical merit on this since our siblings merely inherit a part of our parents' property. That's why we are always encouraged to get married to a person from other family that owns more property than us anyway.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
The effect of legalisation
mercedo wrote today at 1:28 AM
lpetrazickis said 'reduction of ambition in the general population is not one of them.'
lpetrazickis said 'reduction of ambition in the general population is not one of them.'
Oh, you still have a good beard. Many years ago when I was minor, I took it for granted the prostitution is admitted in law because in my town there located infamous red light districts since before I was born. Only later when I was in junior high one of my classmates kindly told me that prostitution is illegal under the current law. Prostitution has been only held in limited districts because it is illegal. No one can openly run a Sex Shop like the cases in other country. I think that certainly oppress the expansion of those red light districts, and in my opinion, the illegality of prostitution has contributed to developing more productive industries. I certainly feel the legalisation of prostitution invite numerous sex industries and that will sluggish our entire economy and reduce the decent ambition of the general public. Some might call it just immoral, but what I must say is it's happier for the people.
Return to nature
Re:Even if it were legal(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.12 0:38 (#19466053) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.09 22:29)
The development of civilisation hasn't contributed to promoting our happiness. Return to nature is now to be called.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.12 0:38 (#19466053) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.09 22:29)
The development of civilisation hasn't contributed to promoting our happiness. Return to nature is now to be called.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Happy Marriage
mercedo wrote today at 12:08 AM
I think you reached the same conclusion as mine. Deduced from your happy marriage that I feel it envious.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Sparky4
Hello. I see you have added Multiply to your list of blogs. We were friended over at /. so I thought " why not at Multiply". sparky4
Thank you for your kind invitation. I gladly accept that.
Incest
mercedo wrote today at 11:40 PM
Incest was forbidden because it is the easiest way for mating. Probably before civilisation, many humans kept on practicing this for too many years. Incest became taboo mainly from economic reasons. Suppose if we got married to one of our parents, we can inherit their property. But remember we can automatically inherit their property because we are their child, so we don't have to get married to them in order only to inherit their property. If we got married to a person from other family, we can inherit property that belongs to other family. From the same reason even if we got married to one of siblings, we find no economical merit on this since our siblings merely inherit a part of our parents' property. That's why we are always encouraged to get married to a person from other family that owns more property than us anyway, and that explains why incest was not taboo amongst nobles in Hawaii. They needed to monopolise their wealth.
??
Re:So...(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.11 2:49 (#19459075) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.09 22:29)
It's hard to say so explicitly though in my eyes, both prostitution and marriage are based on the same principle that is both beneficial to others. I think prostitution exists outside of our ordinary economic system. Prostitution itself ought not to be considered bad, but we observe that the excessive amount of prostitution is not just productive from social viewpoint.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.11 2:49 (#19459075) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.09 22:29)
It's hard to say so explicitly though in my eyes, both prostitution and marriage are based on the same principle that is both beneficial to others. I think prostitution exists outside of our ordinary economic system. Prostitution itself ought not to be considered bad, but we observe that the excessive amount of prostitution is not just productive from social viewpoint.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
?
Re:Even if it were legal(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.11 2:21 (#19458921) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.09 22:29)
If prostitution were legalised, human economy would be less active than now. Obviously thanks to the surge of supply side, the price will fall significantly. People don't intend to work as hard as now. I think prostitution forms a fundamental of our society. This rule is based on 'give and give' relations, so no one will be hurt if that works.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.11 2:21 (#19458921) (http://www.blogger.c...00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.09 22:29)
If prostitution were legalised, human economy would be less active than now. Obviously thanks to the surge of supply side, the price will fall significantly. People don't intend to work as hard as now. I think prostitution forms a fundamental of our society. This rule is based on 'give and give' relations, so no one will be hurt if that works.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Prostitution
mercedo wrote today at 1:32 AM
There are some laws that intended to regulate the quantity of something that itself is not bad. Prostitution is needed to control, but this is not something that ought to be totally banned.
Prostitution
mercedo wrote today at 1:22 AM
Granted prostitution is illegal and against the rule of human society, this is widespread and widely held varied its shape in many arenas of our daily life. Usually men pay the cost of date, conventionally men support his family economy, etc. Sometimes I think that the legalisation of prostitution will make humans happier than now. Human society will grow slower than now. In a sense marriage can be called the ultimate form of prostitution, though it's not a prostitution. Less productive in society but very fruitful in family life...I think this ought to be the goal of our society.
Prostitution
mercedo wrote today at 12:22 AM
First of all, here I don't limit the cases in a particular gender. There are many prostitutes in both genders.
Do you really think that a significant number of people will work as prostitutes?
Yes, I think so.I have heard that prostitution is the oldest occupation. Once it were legalised, many people would start moving to this first industry humans used to be engaged in.
I think that this was not very convenient for the first rulers of the society in early civilisation around 5000 BC that the society would stay in such a barter based level for the accumulation of wealth that the rulers considered it is essential to build the civilised society.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Prostitution
Prostitution
2007.06.09 22:29
I thought about why prostitution is prohibited legally here. Because it is the easiest way to get money, everyone would be trying to do this job if it is permitted by law. That must be destroying the country's economy. Because so many people will be engaged in this job, few can work in more productive field.
2007.06.09 22:29
I thought about why prostitution is prohibited legally here. Because it is the easiest way to get money, everyone would be trying to do this job if it is permitted by law. That must be destroying the country's economy. Because so many people will be engaged in this job, few can work in more productive field.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Terrific
Hi, ,
I'm Ok, you said you expect long letters, but I had nothing to say in long letters. That's the reason I hadn't sent.
I haven't had a perpetual relationship with anyone yet, I always feel frustrated these days everyday.
Do you plan to visit my house? If now, I am not working at night.... Last time you visited Australia, you could have come, I feel so reget that you didn't.
I enjoyed the photos you sent me.
Terrific!
..
I'm Ok, you said you expect long letters, but I had nothing to say in long letters. That's the reason I hadn't sent.
I haven't had a perpetual relationship with anyone yet, I always feel frustrated these days everyday.
Do you plan to visit my house? If now, I am not working at night.... Last time you visited Australia, you could have come, I feel so reget that you didn't.
I enjoyed the photos you sent me.
Terrific!
..
Time, etc
Time & Space
2007.06.08 23:06
From human criteria, space is so wide and limitless, gigantic in comparison to humans. From similar reasons, microcosm is so small, both macro and microcosm are beyond our comprehension. Strangely the natural rules that are adaptive to human world, macrocosm, microcosm are all different.
You can only assume what the world is like from only human point of view. It is simply impossible to know simple fact, how the world actually is in the first place.
Though I highly value your endeavour, I'm afraid you can only approach, but you can't reach. It's only worthy for us to know it as long as it relates to human interest. How about time? Do you think there's absolute time? Time has only meanings when it regulates the relative relations to each other. Time is a notion we start noticing after we are born. Space is also the similar notion. There's no absolute time and space other than trying to measure in the eyes of humans.
I'm afraid your attitude is not even in common among natural scientists. Einstein won't think as you do. For example, how could you think that the same laws of physics apply at all scales? Newtonian mechanics only applies at our ordinary life, quantum theory and theory of relativism are needed in both microcosm and macrocosm to explain respectively. Natural science we seek for only solves questions in human sphere from micro to macro pivoted at our ordinary life. We might be able to pick a couple of shining sands at beach, yet haven't noticed the sea of truth lying before us.
Since I said that humans are the only being that can be aware of time in the first place, I say time has only meaning as long as it relates to humans. I mean for monkeys and birds or other living species, as long as they can't detect the sequence of time, time has no meaning, in other words, time doesn't exist. How can you detect time? It is impossible to detect time when we sleep. Unless we are aware, as it were time stops.
Do you still believe in time, are you going to say time can be measurable by watch? Are you going to say a watch or clock keeps on measuring time after all humans die away? No.
2007.06.08 23:06
From human criteria, space is so wide and limitless, gigantic in comparison to humans. From similar reasons, microcosm is so small, both macro and microcosm are beyond our comprehension. Strangely the natural rules that are adaptive to human world, macrocosm, microcosm are all different.
You can only assume what the world is like from only human point of view. It is simply impossible to know simple fact, how the world actually is in the first place.
Though I highly value your endeavour, I'm afraid you can only approach, but you can't reach. It's only worthy for us to know it as long as it relates to human interest. How about time? Do you think there's absolute time? Time has only meanings when it regulates the relative relations to each other. Time is a notion we start noticing after we are born. Space is also the similar notion. There's no absolute time and space other than trying to measure in the eyes of humans.
I'm afraid your attitude is not even in common among natural scientists. Einstein won't think as you do. For example, how could you think that the same laws of physics apply at all scales? Newtonian mechanics only applies at our ordinary life, quantum theory and theory of relativism are needed in both microcosm and macrocosm to explain respectively. Natural science we seek for only solves questions in human sphere from micro to macro pivoted at our ordinary life. We might be able to pick a couple of shining sands at beach, yet haven't noticed the sea of truth lying before us.
Since I said that humans are the only being that can be aware of time in the first place, I say time has only meaning as long as it relates to humans. I mean for monkeys and birds or other living species, as long as they can't detect the sequence of time, time has no meaning, in other words, time doesn't exist. How can you detect time? It is impossible to detect time when we sleep. Unless we are aware, as it were time stops.
Do you still believe in time, are you going to say time can be measurable by watch? Are you going to say a watch or clock keeps on measuring time after all humans die away? No.
Adam
2007.06.08 22:59
The perception of time has been particular to humans since Adam found all humans are dead. Unfortunately despite your insist, time doesn't exist outside our perception.
My idea is completely in line with the plausible scientific facts from anthropological point of view. 4.57 billion years ago the Earth formed. Life on the Earth started existing 3.7 billion years ago. Current human species originated 200,000 years ago in Africa, then Adam was born at least more than 7000 years ago. In comparison with relatively long history of current human being, Adam ought to be regarded as the first modern human.
He was the first human who noticed 'humans are dead', 'human didn't wear anything'. Before the birth of Adam, no one noticed humans are mortal, and it was just natural for them not to wear anything. Humans before Adam never realised who they are. They weren't even ashamed of their nakedness.
Adam was the first person to try having food other than they already knew. It was adventurous at that time. Adam was also the first person who started getting out of their living sphere, that is Garden of Eden. First expenditure to seek for a better life started here. Adam was indeed one of the most remarkable figures in human history in many senses, who ought to be completely distinguished from humans before him.
We start counting years from the start of the first civilisation that occurred in East of Eden, somewhere in Mesopotamia. Then argument in Time and Space. Adam was the first human who noticed there might be Time. Time didn't exist before Adam noticed there might be. After he noticed them, he noticed there's only limited time he can live. From the similar reasons, space didn't exist until he noticed he only lives in a limited space.
Why do you believe in Time or Space? Time & Space are an illusion that the first humans started to have. They cannot be arguable from scientific viewpoint.
Time
Just because something is huge doesn't mean that we cannot comprehend it; for example, it appears that the same laws of physics apply at all scales. Besides, even by going this far, I am letting you promote human experience over nature.
We exist in nature, so nature comes prior to our experience. Without any one of us, or indeed all of us, nature would continue; without nature, we would not exist.
What does it matter what I know? The world is there regardless. I want to know what I can know about it, but that won't be everything. If I am lucky, I will know the fundamental laws in my lifetime, although I cannot hope to know all of the facts.-Morosoph
We exist in nature, so nature comes prior to our experience. Without any one of us, or indeed all of us, nature would continue; without nature, we would not exist.
What does it matter what I know? The world is there regardless. I want to know what I can know about it, but that won't be everything. If I am lucky, I will know the fundamental laws in my lifetime, although I cannot hope to know all of the facts.-Morosoph
I'm afraid your attitude is not even in common among natural scientists. Einstein won't think as you do. For example, how could you think that the same laws of physics apply at all scales? Newtonian mechanics only applies at our ordinary life, quantum theory and theory of relativism are needed in both microcosm and macrocosm to explain respectively. Natural science we seek for only solves questions in human sphere from micro to macro pivoted at our ordinary life. We might be able to pick a couple of shining sands at beach, yet haven't noticed the sea of truth lying before us.
Time has meaning whether we are conscious of it or not. To say otherwise is to conflate emotional purpose with physical existence and well-definedness. Emotional purpose and physical definition are both given the word "meaning", but they are very different things.
We become aware of time at birth, but our consciousness of time is just that: our perception of something that already exists. Few of us would believe that time began at the beginning of our own existence, a perspective that would be thought of as extremely arrogant. Yet substitution of general human experience seems to be okay. Quite apart from the unwarranted substitution of one person's experience with another, this appears to me to be arrogance on the part of humanity. We are not the only thing that exists.
I understand your entire argument here, but since I said that humans are the only being that can be aware of time in the first place, I say time has only meaning as long as it relates to humans. I mean for monkeys and birds or other living species, as long as they can't detect the sequence of time, time has no meaning, in other words, time doesn't exist. How can you detect time? It is impossible to detect time when we sleep. Unless we are aware, as it were time stops.
Do you still believe in time, are you going to say time can be measurable by watch? Are you going to say a watch or clock keeps on measuring time after all humans die away? No.
Adam
I should have explained my idea more ; )
My idea is completely in line with the plausible scientific facts from anthropological point of view. 4.57 billion years ago the Earth formed. Life on the Earth started existing 3.7 billion years ago. Current human species originated 200,000 years ago in Africa, then Adam was born at least more than 7000 years ago. In comparison with relatively long history of current human being, Adam ought to be regarded as the first modern human.
He was the first human who noticed 'humans are dead', 'human didn't wear anything'. Before the birth of Adam, no one noticed humans are mortal, and it was just natural for them not to wear anything. Humans before Adam never realised who they are. They weren't even ashamed of their nakedness.
Adam was the first person to try having food other than they already knew. It was adventurous at that time. Adam was also the first person who started getting out of their living sphere, that is Garden of Eden. First expenditure to seek for a better life started here. Adam was indeed one of the most remarkable figures in human history in many senses, who ought to be completely distinguished from humans before him.
We start counting years from the start of the first civilisation that occurred in East of Eden, somewhere in Mesopotamia. Then argument in Time and Space. Adam was the first human who noticed there might be Time. Time didn't exist before Adam noticed there might be. After he noticed them, he noticed there's only limited time he can live. From the similar reasons, space didn't exist until he noticed he only lives in a limited space.
Why do you believe in Time or Space? Time & Space are an illusion that the first humans started to have. They cannot be arguable from scientific viewpoint.
Impossibility of Time
mercedo wrote today at 9:39 AM
The perception of time has been particular to humans since Adam found all humans are dead. Unfortunately despite your insist, time doesn't exist outside our perception.
That is my standpoint.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Time & Space
editdeletereply
mercedo wrote today at 12:29 AM
mercedo wrote today at 12:29 AM
From human criteria, space is so wide and limitless, gigantic in comparison to humans. From similar reasons, microcosm is so small, both macro and microcosm are beyond our comprehension. Strangely the natural rules that are adaptive to human world, macrocosm, microcosm are all different.
You can only assume what the world is like from only human point of view. It is simply impossible to know simple fact, how the world actually is in the first place.
Though I highly value your endeavour, I'm afraid you can only approach, but you can't reach. It's only worthy for us to know it as long as it relates to human interest.
How about time? Do you think there's absolute time? Time has only meanings when it regulates the relative relations to each other. Time is a notion we start noticing after we are born. Space is also the similar notion. There's no absolute time and space other than trying to measure in the eyes of humans.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Wanted
Single Belarus Women
10000 Belarus women seeking a date Sweet – Smart – Beautiful
www.Anastasia-International.com
Meet black women
Free Interracial dating online. Pics, personal ads & more.
InterRacialMatcher.com
Christian Singles Dating
Marriage minded Christian Singles Dating for committed relationships
www.ChristianSingles.com
10000 Belarus women seeking a date Sweet – Smart – Beautiful
www.Anastasia-International.com
Meet black women
Free Interracial dating online. Pics, personal ads & more.
InterRacialMatcher.com
Christian Singles Dating
Marriage minded Christian Singles Dating for committed relationships
www.ChristianSingles.com
Harbour
mercedo wrote today at 1:29 AM
Throughout my twenties and thirties I travelled a lot. I visited all the cities above at least one time and if I had to choose among them I would choose Los Angeles. I liked Santa Monica best. But my most favourite city is not in the list, it is San Fransisco.
In general I like the harbour city. In Europe I would choose Venice first and foremost. Rotterdam was also nice. In England that was New Castle that attracted me most.
In Japan? I liked to visite Kobe many times, but this city was completely destroyed after the big earthquake. Yokohama is also another big harbour city. I never forget the big sunset I saw in Manila Bay with my love those days...
I like harbour. Because harbour is the place we can send our passion that doesn't reach.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Professionalism
Professionalism
2007.06.05 2:50
I started writing poems at age 10. I wrote about 200 poems during junior high school days. I devoted myself to writing poems from 16 to 19. I lost everything in my life what usually minors can acquire but I got what usually minors can hardly acquire, that is fame and recognition.
It took nearly twenty years to be able to write something workable in English. I never compromise, never, never. I am proud to be a writer. I never lose to anyone when it comes to writing. Never, never.
I usually write 5 hours in a day at least, always at night from 10 to 4.
2007.06.05 2:50
I started writing poems at age 10. I wrote about 200 poems during junior high school days. I devoted myself to writing poems from 16 to 19. I lost everything in my life what usually minors can acquire but I got what usually minors can hardly acquire, that is fame and recognition.
It took nearly twenty years to be able to write something workable in English. I never compromise, never, never. I am proud to be a writer. I never lose to anyone when it comes to writing. Never, never.
I usually write 5 hours in a day at least, always at night from 10 to 4.
Again
mercedo wrote today at 1:49 AM
morosoph said
'but space is an extension of matter, and matter is energy, '
I disagree. Space and time can be only meaningful when we perceive.
mercedo wrote today at 1:43 AM
How do you think about structuralism?
morosoph said
'but space is an extension of matter, and matter is energy, '
I disagree. Space and time can be only meaningful when we perceive.
mercedo wrote today at 1:43 AM
How do you think about structuralism?
Silver Cremated Bone of Buddha
Silver Cremated Bone of Buddha
2007.06.05 0:30
Here in Japan we call white rice as above in Japanese Ginshari. White rice has been respected from ancient times even though it became the cause of beriberi for the lack of thiamine.
2007.06.05 0:30
Here in Japan we call white rice as above in Japanese Ginshari. White rice has been respected from ancient times even though it became the cause of beriberi for the lack of thiamine.
Monday, June 04, 2007
MySpace
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded
deletereplymorosoph wrote on Jun 3
We're here! Hello!
Obviously this link is for your own sake; I have a couple of links for morosoph (me!) only...
editdeletereplymercedo wrote on Jun 3
We're here! Hello!
Obviously this link is for your own sake; I have a couple of links for morosoph (me!) only...
Thanks for pointing out.
deletereplymorosoph wrote on Jun 3
We're here! Hello!
Obviously this link is for your own sake; I have a couple of links for morosoph (me!) only...
editdeletereplymercedo wrote on Jun 3
We're here! Hello!
Obviously this link is for your own sake; I have a couple of links for morosoph (me!) only...
Thanks for pointing out.
?
Yahoo!
Posted on Jun 4, '07 1:12 AM for you
yahoo.com 0 replies
Google
Posted on Jun 3, '07 11:18 PM for you
google.com 0 replies
http://www.blogger.com/start
Posted on Jun 3, '07 11:14 PM for you
blogger.com 0 replies
mercedo - MySpace User
Posted on Jun 3, '07 6:18 AM for you
myspace.com 2 replies
mercedo - Slashdot User
Posted on Jun 3, '07 6:06 AM for everyone
slashdot.org 0 replies
Treacqle - Slashdot Comments
Posted on May 26, '07 4:34 AM for everyone
mercedo-comments.blogspot.com 0 replies
Treacqle - Slashdot Journals
Posted on May 26, '07 4:29 AM for everyone
"Enjoy."
mercedo-complete.blogspot.com 0 replies
Posted on Jun 4, '07 1:12 AM for you
yahoo.com 0 replies
Posted on Jun 3, '07 11:18 PM for you
google.com 0 replies
http://www.blogger.com/start
Posted on Jun 3, '07 11:14 PM for you
blogger.com 0 replies
mercedo - MySpace User
Posted on Jun 3, '07 6:18 AM for you
myspace.com 2 replies
mercedo - Slashdot User
Posted on Jun 3, '07 6:06 AM for everyone
slashdot.org 0 replies
Treacqle - Slashdot Comments
Posted on May 26, '07 4:34 AM for everyone
mercedo-comments.blogspot.com 0 replies
Treacqle - Slashdot Journals
Posted on May 26, '07 4:29 AM for everyone
"Enjoy."
mercedo-complete.blogspot.com 0 replies
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Blogs
Blogs
Blog Name
Team Members
Treacqle - Circular Refuge Journals
Treacqle - Slashdot Archives I
Treacqle - Personal Letters
Treacqle - Technocrat.net Journals
Treacqle - Images
Treacqle - Lists Of Communities
Treacqle - Slashdot Comments
Treacqle - Slashdot Journals
Treacqle - Slado Archives
Treacqle - MySpace Archives
Treacqle - Slashdot Archives III
Treacqle - Slashdot Archives II
Blog Name
Team Members
Treacqle - Circular Refuge Journals
Treacqle - Slashdot Archives I
Treacqle - Personal Letters
Treacqle - Technocrat.net Journals
Treacqle - Images
Treacqle - Lists Of Communities
Treacqle - Slashdot Comments
Treacqle - Slashdot Journals
Treacqle - Slado Archives
Treacqle - MySpace Archives
Treacqle - Slashdot Archives III
Treacqle - Slashdot Archives II
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Brown Rice
Re:No, the problem is POLISHED rice.(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.02 3:42 (#19355413) (http://www2.blogger.com/profile/00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.02 2:16)
I don't know where you live, but here in Japan more than 99% people eat white rice. Brown rice is only eaten by old people or people who are sick for health reason.
I'm allergic to wheat. -Drinkypoo
That's too bad, some people show allergy in wheat, egg, peanuts, milk, broad bean. If you can't have bread, for health reason I recommend brown rice, though we never had it doesn't matter.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.02 3:42 (#19355413) (http://www2.blogger.com/profile/00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.02 2:16)
I don't know where you live, but here in Japan more than 99% people eat white rice. Brown rice is only eaten by old people or people who are sick for health reason.
I'm allergic to wheat. -Drinkypoo
That's too bad, some people show allergy in wheat, egg, peanuts, milk, broad bean. If you can't have bread, for health reason I recommend brown rice, though we never had it doesn't matter.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Polished Rice
No people prefer to eat rice with skin although such a way exists. Usually we eat polished rice. I think now we eat it enriched with vitamn B. Personally I'd like to have bread more in our diet.
Battle In Committee
Ruling liberal democratic party, similar to Conservative party in Britain, Republican party in US, has got an overwhelming majority in the last general election, that was fought in single issue -whether we approve the privatisation of postal service. Now ruling coalition parties pass any bill they want. We can eyewitness the battle in the committee whenever the ballot is held. This scene is nothing but a destruction of democracy.
Martyr
mercedo wrote today at 12:52 AM, edited today at 12:54 AM
When I looked it up the Greek word 'martur', from which the word martyr is derived, I realised why some people are eager to die for their cause. All humans die, all people who have some faith are humans, so they also die. But for them how to die matters a lot. Martyr is the best way for them to convince their lives in the next world. If they can acquire it by not choosing some medical treatment that is absolutely required for their lives to save, it's the easiest way for them to obtain eternal life in such a simply way. It's not very hard for them to do. They can get it by just one negative choice, which is much easier to get it as opposed to obtain it through time consuming religious practices, and still not so sure whether to have been able to get it.
Friday, June 01, 2007
?
Re:In Communist Cuba...(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.02 0:19 (#19352143) (http://www2.blogger....00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.01 3:19)
In Capitalist world, some can allow to exercise their right to the extent that they might leave their lives. In Cuba people can keep on living without spending medical cost. I guess you are eager to insist there's no choice for Cubans whether to see a doctor because doctors are allotted. But you also mention the doctors left their homeland to see patients overseas for free. I don't think we can deduce some conclusions here.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.06.02 0:19 (#19352143) (http://www2.blogger....00096157591312337186 Last Journal: 2007.06.01 3:19)
In Capitalist world, some can allow to exercise their right to the extent that they might leave their lives. In Cuba people can keep on living without spending medical cost. I guess you are eager to insist there's no choice for Cubans whether to see a doctor because doctors are allotted. But you also mention the doctors left their homeland to see patients overseas for free. I don't think we can deduce some conclusions here.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters
Non Compos Mentis
Not only I but also many other people agree with you. Minors are neither responsible nor competent to making such a critical decision that directly relates to life and death. Minors whose parent follows some belief ought to be declared non compos mentis when it comes to severe surgery that needs to employ blood, and the related law ought to give the exclusive right to choose most acceptable way to a very doctor in charge.
Thanks
Thanks. This article is the end of serial thinking to the refusal of blood transfusion, products. My idea before was completely opposite to the thinking of majority people. This is a free country in a free world. Each individual has a right to choose whatever way they think best. On the other hands, a doctor merely has privilege over the decision of each patients. A doctor can exercise his privilege as long as it doesn't infringe patient's rights. Needless to say, privilege has less priority to those rights.
Bianca
Drink saliva - Japanese expression means very impressive, breathtaking, also very juicy, delicious..
Bianca's word
"you dont have to love me, you dont even have to like me. but you will RESPECT me." -Bianca
Thank you for the beautiful word.
Compatibility of human parts
Transfusion is one form of transplantation. Or rather the former can be said the earliest attempt of the latter.
Martyr
Friday, June 01, 2007
Martyr
What was a doctor's job
Some people don't accept some medical treatment even if when they are absolutely necessary to save their lives.
If a patient instructed a doctor not to do some particular treatments - for example, not to use some medicine or practice some medical treatment beside medical reasons, how a doctor ought to react?
If a doctor practiced some particular treatments when he judged that they are necessary and irreplaceable to other measures, then he did them deliberately with fully knowing the patient's wish of refusal to those particular treatments, and he successfully saved his life in consequence. Might he sue the doctor for not honouring his wish, or not?
It doesn't matter, because a doctor did what he had to do, this is a doctor's professional act within a range permissible by medical doctors. His first job is to save a life of patients. If he can do it within alternative treatments the patients allowed the doctor to practice, that'll be fine, too.
If the case involves in using the very treatments the patients directed him not to, his medical judgement ought to be prior to patient's wish. If you don't want particular measures when they're absolutely necessary, all he has to do is to leave a doctor. If he did so, the case will leave a matter a doctor concerns. That'll be fine, too.
Next case is even more troublesome. When a doctor judged a particular measure is necessary and irreplaceable to other measures, but he didn't it because he honoured the patient's wish and as a consequence, a patient died.
In this case, he might be questioned as murderer. He definitely honoured the patient's wish, but he not only violated doctor's ethics but also criminal code. Because he didn't do what he had to do enough in his job. The patient won't sue a doctor of course, if his family were understandable to the patient's wish, they won't sue him either. The problem was the third person like public prosecutors can sue the doctor for not fully responsible to his job. If the deceased were an influential person as company president, the company would have a possibility to sue the doctor.
If the patients leaves the matter to a doctor after he clearly states his wish not to accept a particular medical treatment, that'll be fine. My conclusion is that a patient cannot instruct a doctor not to practice some particular treatments as long as he is a patient of the doctor. This was my idea one week ago.
Martyr
Religious people more or less believe in life after death though the notion varies. So they are not afraid of death, or rather they are eager to start another life after their death. Martyr is their ideal form of death. Because otherwise they can't expect another life they hope for. Some religious people are willing to welcome this way to reach death. The desire to martyr shows itself in some refusal to current medicine.
Battle of conscience
In the end it's the patient's freedom to see a doctor who honors his direction or change a doctor who ignores his wish. Of course he can choose not to go to see a doctor in the first place or in the end. A doctor can merely suggest a better way to take but he can't force his patients to undergo his way.
Respectable believers won't sue any doctor even if he did what his patients feel detested. But once lawsuits were held, the doctors won't win. He needs to pay compensation for the psychological loss of the patients. But the amount of compensation might be significantly lower in comparison with the benefit the doctor brought. In short, lawsuits are counterproductive and less beneficial. What was important was not keep away from blood itself, but what he did to avoid them. His conscience won't question himself if he did best what he could before his conscience.
For example, as to blood transfusion, products. It's better for him to emphasise the sacredness of blood rather than the risks blood has. Medically speaking, blood products or transfusion has more risks than other treatment. However probably Moses prohibited it from the health risks blood has. First successful blood transfusion was reported after blood type was found in 18c and blood products are a result of modern medicine. Moses won't prohibit the use of blood in medical purpose for this health reason if now.
Usually people without faith are eager to live just longer, but people like you don't want to live against your faith, instead want to live well in accordance with God's will. Society, doctors ought to respect the patient's wish first. The most important thing is the doctor won't be under inquisition for the allegation of euthanasia even if it involved the cases of life and death. Because he did his best to save the life of patients within a range all he allowed to do.
Euthanasia often take places in hospice and it's not illegal these days when the patients themselves wished firmly. Even if the cases that involve the vegetable man, who has lost his consciousness and just live through the life maintenance apparatus. If the patient's family wished to take away the apparatus, some doctors do with this consent. This medical act is not publicly admitted yet, but it has been held these days under the tacit consent with society, law enforcement.
Refusal to transfusion ought to be understood in line with this current movement in society. The happiness of the individuals ought to be determined by each individuals, this is not a matter people other than himself have a say.
Martyr
What was a doctor's job
Some people don't accept some medical treatment even if when they are absolutely necessary to save their lives.
If a patient instructed a doctor not to do some particular treatments - for example, not to use some medicine or practice some medical treatment beside medical reasons, how a doctor ought to react?
If a doctor practiced some particular treatments when he judged that they are necessary and irreplaceable to other measures, then he did them deliberately with fully knowing the patient's wish of refusal to those particular treatments, and he successfully saved his life in consequence. Might he sue the doctor for not honouring his wish, or not?
It doesn't matter, because a doctor did what he had to do, this is a doctor's professional act within a range permissible by medical doctors. His first job is to save a life of patients. If he can do it within alternative treatments the patients allowed the doctor to practice, that'll be fine, too.
If the case involves in using the very treatments the patients directed him not to, his medical judgement ought to be prior to patient's wish. If you don't want particular measures when they're absolutely necessary, all he has to do is to leave a doctor. If he did so, the case will leave a matter a doctor concerns. That'll be fine, too.
Next case is even more troublesome. When a doctor judged a particular measure is necessary and irreplaceable to other measures, but he didn't it because he honoured the patient's wish and as a consequence, a patient died.
In this case, he might be questioned as murderer. He definitely honoured the patient's wish, but he not only violated doctor's ethics but also criminal code. Because he didn't do what he had to do enough in his job. The patient won't sue a doctor of course, if his family were understandable to the patient's wish, they won't sue him either. The problem was the third person like public prosecutors can sue the doctor for not fully responsible to his job. If the deceased were an influential person as company president, the company would have a possibility to sue the doctor.
If the patients leaves the matter to a doctor after he clearly states his wish not to accept a particular medical treatment, that'll be fine. My conclusion is that a patient cannot instruct a doctor not to practice some particular treatments as long as he is a patient of the doctor. This was my idea one week ago.
Martyr
Religious people more or less believe in life after death though the notion varies. So they are not afraid of death, or rather they are eager to start another life after their death. Martyr is their ideal form of death. Because otherwise they can't expect another life they hope for. Some religious people are willing to welcome this way to reach death. The desire to martyr shows itself in some refusal to current medicine.
Battle of conscience
In the end it's the patient's freedom to see a doctor who honors his direction or change a doctor who ignores his wish. Of course he can choose not to go to see a doctor in the first place or in the end. A doctor can merely suggest a better way to take but he can't force his patients to undergo his way.
Respectable believers won't sue any doctor even if he did what his patients feel detested. But once lawsuits were held, the doctors won't win. He needs to pay compensation for the psychological loss of the patients. But the amount of compensation might be significantly lower in comparison with the benefit the doctor brought. In short, lawsuits are counterproductive and less beneficial. What was important was not keep away from blood itself, but what he did to avoid them. His conscience won't question himself if he did best what he could before his conscience.
For example, as to blood transfusion, products. It's better for him to emphasise the sacredness of blood rather than the risks blood has. Medically speaking, blood products or transfusion has more risks than other treatment. However probably Moses prohibited it from the health risks blood has. First successful blood transfusion was reported after blood type was found in 18c and blood products are a result of modern medicine. Moses won't prohibit the use of blood in medical purpose for this health reason if now.
Usually people without faith are eager to live just longer, but people like you don't want to live against your faith, instead want to live well in accordance with God's will. Society, doctors ought to respect the patient's wish first. The most important thing is the doctor won't be under inquisition for the allegation of euthanasia even if it involved the cases of life and death. Because he did his best to save the life of patients within a range all he allowed to do.
Euthanasia often take places in hospice and it's not illegal these days when the patients themselves wished firmly. Even if the cases that involve the vegetable man, who has lost his consciousness and just live through the life maintenance apparatus. If the patient's family wished to take away the apparatus, some doctors do with this consent. This medical act is not publicly admitted yet, but it has been held these days under the tacit consent with society, law enforcement.
Refusal to transfusion ought to be understood in line with this current movement in society. The happiness of the individuals ought to be determined by each individuals, this is not a matter people other than himself have a say.
Martyr
Martyr
Jun 1, '07 2:32 AM
Jun 1, '07 2:32 AM
by Mer Cedo for group circularrefuge
Religious people more or less believe in life after death though the notion varies. So they are not afraid of death, or rather they are eager to start another life after their death. Martyr is their ideal form of death. Because otherwise they can't expect another life they hope for. Some religious people are willing to accept this way to reach death. The desire to martyr shows itself in some refusal to current medicine.
In the end it's the patient's freedom to see a doctor who honors his direction or change a doctor who ignores his wish. Of course he can choose not to go to see a doctor in the first place or in the end. A doctor can merely suggest a better way to take but he can't force his patients to undergo his way.
Respectable believers won't sue any doctor even if he did what his patients feel detested. But once lawsuits were held, the doctors won't win. He needs to pay compensation for the psychological loss of the patients. But the amount of compensation might be significantly lower in comparison with the benefit the doctor brought. In short, lawsuits are counterproductive and less beneficial. What was important was not keep away from blood itself, but what he did to avoid them. His conscience won't question himself if he did best what he could before his conscience.
For example, as to blood transfusion, products. It's better for him to emphasise the sacredness of blood rather than the risks blood has. Medically speaking, blood products or transfusion has more risks than other treatment. However probably Moses prohibited it from the health risks blood has. First successful blood transfusion was reported after blood type was found in 18c and blood products are a result of modern medicine. Moses won't prohibit the use of blood in medical purpose for this health reason if now.
Usually people without faith are eager to live just longer, but people like he don't want to live against his faith, instead want to live well in accordance with God's will. Society, doctors ought to respect the patient's wish first. The most important thing is the doctor won't be under inquisition for the allegation of euthanasia even if it involved the cases of life and death. Because he did his best to save the life of patients within a range all he allowed to do.
Euthanasia often take places in hospice and it's not illegal these days when the patients themselves wished firmly. Even if the cases that involve the vegetable man, who has lost his consciousness and just live through the life maintenance apparatus. If the patient's family wished to take away the apparatus, some doctors do with this consent. This medical act is not publicly admitted yet, but it has been held these days under the tacit consent with society, law enforcement.
Refusal to transfusion ought to be understood in line with this current movement in society. The happiness of the individuals ought to be determined by each individuals, this is not a matter people other than himself have a say.
Martyr
What was a doctor's job
Some people don't accept some medical treatment even if when they are absolutely necessary to save their lives.
If a patient instructed a doctor not to do some particular treatments - for example, not to use some medicine or practice some medical treatment beside medical reasons, how a doctor ought to react?
If a doctor practiced some particular treatments when he judged that they are necessary and irreplaceable to other measures, then he did them deliberately with fully knowing the patient's wish of refusal to those particular treatments, and he successfully saved his life in consequence. Might he sue the doctor for not honouring his wish, or not?
It doesn't matter, because a doctor did what he had to do, this is a doctor's professional act within a range permissible by medical doctors. His first job is to save a life of patients. If he can do it within alternative treatments the patients allowed the doctor to practice, that'll be fine, too.
If the case involves in using the very treatments the patients directed him not to, his medical judgement ought to be prior to patient's wish. If you don't want particular measures when they're absolutely necessary, all he has to do is to leave a doctor. If he did so, the case will leave a matter a doctor concerns. That'll be fine, too.
Next case is even more troublesome. When a doctor judged a particular measure is necessary and irreplaceable to other measures, but he didn't it because he honoured the patient's wish and as a consequence, a patient died.
In this case, he might be questioned as murderer. He definitely honoured the patient's wish, but he not only violated doctor's ethics but also criminal code. Because he didn't do what he had to do enough in his job. The patient won't sue a doctor of course, if his family were understandable to the patient's wish, they won't sue him either. The problem was the third person like public prosecutors can sue the doctor for not fully responsible to his job. If the deceased were an influential person as company president, the company would have a possibility to sue the doctor.
If the patients leaves the matter to a doctor after he clearly states his wish not to accept a particular medical treatment, that'll be fine. My conclusion is that a patient cannot instruct a doctor not to practice some particular treatments as long as he is a patient of the doctor.
Martyr
Religious people more or less believe in life after death though the notion varies. So they are not afraid of death, or rather they are eager to start another life after their death. Martyr is their ideal form of death. Because otherwise they can't expect another life they hope for. Some religious people are willing to welcome this way to reach death. The desire to martyr shows itself in some refusal to current medicine.
Battle of conscience
In the end it's the patient's freedom to see a doctor who honors his direction or change a doctor who ignores his wish. Of course he can choose not to go to see a doctor in the first place or in the end. A doctor can merely suggest a better way to take but he can't force his patients to undergo his way.
Respectable believers won't sue any doctor even if he did what his patients feel detested. But once lawsuits were held, the doctors won't win. He needs to pay compensation for the psychological loss of the patients. But the amount of compensation might be significantly lower in comparison with the benefit the doctor brought. In short, lawsuits are counterproductive and less beneficial. What was important was not keep away from blood itself, but what he did to avoid them. His conscience won't question himself if he did best what he could before his conscience.
For example, as to blood transfusion, products. It's better for him to emphasise the sacredness of blood rather than the risks blood has. Medically speaking, blood products or transfusion has more risks than other treatment. However probably Moses prohibited it from the health risks blood has. First successful blood transfusion was reported after blood type was found in 18c and blood products are a result of modern medicine. Moses won't prohibit the use of blood in medical purpose for this health reason if now.
Usually people without faith are eager to live just longer, but people like you don't want to live against your faith, instead want to live well in accordance with God's will. Society, doctors ought to respect the patient's wish first. The most important thing is the doctor won't be under inquisition for the allegation of euthanasia even if it involved the cases of life and death. Because he did his best to save the life of patients within a range all he allowed to do.
Some people don't accept some medical treatment even if when they are absolutely necessary to save their lives.
If a patient instructed a doctor not to do some particular treatments - for example, not to use some medicine or practice some medical treatment beside medical reasons, how a doctor ought to react?
If a doctor practiced some particular treatments when he judged that they are necessary and irreplaceable to other measures, then he did them deliberately with fully knowing the patient's wish of refusal to those particular treatments, and he successfully saved his life in consequence. Might he sue the doctor for not honouring his wish, or not?
It doesn't matter, because a doctor did what he had to do, this is a doctor's professional act within a range permissible by medical doctors. His first job is to save a life of patients. If he can do it within alternative treatments the patients allowed the doctor to practice, that'll be fine, too.
If the case involves in using the very treatments the patients directed him not to, his medical judgement ought to be prior to patient's wish. If you don't want particular measures when they're absolutely necessary, all he has to do is to leave a doctor. If he did so, the case will leave a matter a doctor concerns. That'll be fine, too.
Next case is even more troublesome. When a doctor judged a particular measure is necessary and irreplaceable to other measures, but he didn't it because he honoured the patient's wish and as a consequence, a patient died.
In this case, he might be questioned as murderer. He definitely honoured the patient's wish, but he not only violated doctor's ethics but also criminal code. Because he didn't do what he had to do enough in his job. The patient won't sue a doctor of course, if his family were understandable to the patient's wish, they won't sue him either. The problem was the third person like public prosecutors can sue the doctor for not fully responsible to his job. If the deceased were an influential person as company president, the company would have a possibility to sue the doctor.
If the patients leaves the matter to a doctor after he clearly states his wish not to accept a particular medical treatment, that'll be fine. My conclusion is that a patient cannot instruct a doctor not to practice some particular treatments as long as he is a patient of the doctor.
Martyr
Religious people more or less believe in life after death though the notion varies. So they are not afraid of death, or rather they are eager to start another life after their death. Martyr is their ideal form of death. Because otherwise they can't expect another life they hope for. Some religious people are willing to welcome this way to reach death. The desire to martyr shows itself in some refusal to current medicine.
Battle of conscience
In the end it's the patient's freedom to see a doctor who honors his direction or change a doctor who ignores his wish. Of course he can choose not to go to see a doctor in the first place or in the end. A doctor can merely suggest a better way to take but he can't force his patients to undergo his way.
Respectable believers won't sue any doctor even if he did what his patients feel detested. But once lawsuits were held, the doctors won't win. He needs to pay compensation for the psychological loss of the patients. But the amount of compensation might be significantly lower in comparison with the benefit the doctor brought. In short, lawsuits are counterproductive and less beneficial. What was important was not keep away from blood itself, but what he did to avoid them. His conscience won't question himself if he did best what he could before his conscience.
For example, as to blood transfusion, products. It's better for him to emphasise the sacredness of blood rather than the risks blood has. Medically speaking, blood products or transfusion has more risks than other treatment. However probably Moses prohibited it from the health risks blood has. First successful blood transfusion was reported after blood type was found in 18c and blood products are a result of modern medicine. Moses won't prohibit the use of blood in medical purpose for this health reason if now.
Usually people without faith are eager to live just longer, but people like you don't want to live against your faith, instead want to live well in accordance with God's will. Society, doctors ought to respect the patient's wish first. The most important thing is the doctor won't be under inquisition for the allegation of euthanasia even if it involved the cases of life and death. Because he did his best to save the life of patients within a range all he allowed to do.
Battle of Conscience
Battle of Conscience
2007.06.01 0:39
In the end it's the patient's freedom to see a doctor who honors his direction or change a doctor who ignores his wish. Of course he can choose not to go to see a doctor in the first place or in the end. A doctor can merely suggest a better way to take but he can't force his patients to undergo his way.
Respectable believers won't sue any doctor even if he did what his patients feel detested. But once lawsuits were held, the doctors won't win. He needs to pay compensation for the psychological loss of the patients. But the amount of compensation might be significantly lower in comparison with the benefit the doctor brought. In short, lawsuits are counterproductive and less beneficial. What was important was not keep away from blood itself, but what he did to avoid them. His conscience won't question himself if he did best what he could before his conscience.
For example, as to blood transfusion, products. It's better for him to emphasise the sacredness of blood rather than the risks blood has. Medically speaking, blood products or transfusion has more risks than other treatment. However probably Moses prohibitted it from the health risks blood has. First successful blood transfusion was reported after blood type was found in 18c and blood products are a result of modern medicine. Moses won't prohibit the use of blood in medical purpose for this health reason if now.
Usually people without faith are eager to live just longer, but people like you don't want to live against your faith, instead want to live well in accordance with God's will. Society, doctors ought to respect the patient's wish first. The most important thing is the doctor won't be inquisited for the allegation of euthanasia even if it involved the cases of life and death. Because he did his best to save the life of patients within a range all he allowed to do. That's my idea so far on this matter.
2007.06.01 0:39
In the end it's the patient's freedom to see a doctor who honors his direction or change a doctor who ignores his wish. Of course he can choose not to go to see a doctor in the first place or in the end. A doctor can merely suggest a better way to take but he can't force his patients to undergo his way.
Respectable believers won't sue any doctor even if he did what his patients feel detested. But once lawsuits were held, the doctors won't win. He needs to pay compensation for the psychological loss of the patients. But the amount of compensation might be significantly lower in comparison with the benefit the doctor brought. In short, lawsuits are counterproductive and less beneficial. What was important was not keep away from blood itself, but what he did to avoid them. His conscience won't question himself if he did best what he could before his conscience.
For example, as to blood transfusion, products. It's better for him to emphasise the sacredness of blood rather than the risks blood has. Medically speaking, blood products or transfusion has more risks than other treatment. However probably Moses prohibitted it from the health risks blood has. First successful blood transfusion was reported after blood type was found in 18c and blood products are a result of modern medicine. Moses won't prohibit the use of blood in medical purpose for this health reason if now.
Usually people without faith are eager to live just longer, but people like you don't want to live against your faith, instead want to live well in accordance with God's will. Society, doctors ought to respect the patient's wish first. The most important thing is the doctor won't be inquisited for the allegation of euthanasia even if it involved the cases of life and death. Because he did his best to save the life of patients within a range all he allowed to do. That's my idea so far on this matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)