Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I'm ambivalent about that last assertion. I think there's a societal implication that if things get really bad, the police/army/coastguard will have to come in and rescue them. Sure, you can say, "Don't rescue me!" but people (and polling-twitchy politicians) simply won't stand for it. So it's different than all the rest because it implicitly involves someone (a rescue worker) who's not giving consent and who may be endangered by the rescue.
  • Some of those are cut and dried "yes" answers. Some of them have caveats that need to be added. For instance donating an organ to who ever you want should have a medical rider. Some of them are matters of interpretation, or conscience, or even morality. All subjective.

    You still have to live under the laws of the land.

    However, all those lines really start with an unstated "I think". Which is fine and dandy.

  • Sure, someone should have a legal right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet but that poses an interesting dilemma. Some feel that society has a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves, such as with medical expenses. If an indegent mother cannot afford pre-natal care, the argument asserts that by society providing her with such care, we lower long-term costs by ensuring a more healthy baby.

    However, what about the motorcycle rider? Should society bear the costs of his voluntary activ

    • I recognize and agree with your point that there are occasionally complex issues. However, I have simple answers to some of the ones you raise. :)

      Some feel that society has a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves, such as with medical expenses.

      Those who feel that moral obligation should bear the burden of carrying it out, rather than legislating their morality onto anyone else. :)

      In our current state of affairs, the motorcycle rider who seriously injures himself and sits in a h

      --
      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
      • should a pregnant mother be forbidden to drink aclohol?"

        No, but that doesn't stop me from talking to her about how bad drinking (and smoking) is to her unborn child.

      • I'm fine with people not riding without helmets. I would impose two legal requirements:

        1) proof of health insurance
        2) be an organ donor

        I would say the same for those that feel the need to not use seat belts.

        Freedom to fuck your life up as much as you want is fine. Imposing a burden on society for your actions needs to be somehow amerliorated.

        If one wants to belong to a group for certain benefits then you need to go along with the group's rules.

        I suppose if a helmetless rider signs a document that he won't b
  • I don't know about in countries with fully privatised medical systems, but in Australia we have largely public health.

    And some of the assertions fall down under those circumstances.

    For example. As a general rule, you should ride a motorcycle with a helmet. REALLY REALLY bad things happen to heads in motorcycle accidents.

    The government owns those roads you want to ride on. And they are going to have to pay if you hurt yourself. So the deal they do is that if you want to ride a motorcycle on their roads, you