by Catherine Delahunty
I am horrified that the Ministry of Health’s mobile dental clinics won’t be wheelchair accessible. If the vision is to take health out to the people then access is a fundamental issue.
The excuse that a ramp would cost $70,000 must be examined. What has happened to the DIY approach to practical problems like building a ramp?”
The Green Party and Disabled Persons Assembly both refuse to believe you cannot buy or a build a suitable ramp for less than $70,000. In fact when I was working in the Auckland Green Party office we bought a mobile ramp for under $3000. The Ministry of Health needs to look at the access issue with some common sense
Clause 25 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities affirms the right to the highest standards of health care. Our Government has signed up to this Convention but the dental clinic debacle indicates that it is not being implemented.
That is why I have a Bill in the Members Ballot to create a full time Disability commissioner in the Human Rights Commission whose job it would be to make sure the United Nations Convention was implemented with some teeth.
I make no apology for the bad pun. We badly need a structural issues watchdog to advance the collective rights of people with disabilities. The disability sector has identified this need and would like a proper Commission with this mandate.
In tough economic times a new Commission is unlikely but I have received favourable initial comments from the Minister for Disabilities and the Minister of Justice. Meanwhile we need the Ministry of Health to get some ramps for their dental units. Anything less is plain and simple discrimination and a breach of our commitments in the Convention.
Published in Featured | Health & Wellbeing by Catherine Delahunty on Fri, November 6th, 2009
Tags: Dental care, human rights, Wheelchair access
More posts by Catherine Delahunty | more about Catherine Delahunty
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Sigh!
Do try and stop telling lies Mrs Delahunty, nobody is being denied Dental care.
We have no need for a disability commissioner and we certainly should not be taking any notice of the corrupt UN.
Like or Dislike:
8 
14 (-6)
“Do try and stop telling lies Mrs Delahunty,”
it’s always amusing to see Big Bro accuse other people of telling lies.
“nobody is being denied Dental care.”
Yeah? then how are children in wheelchairs going to get the dental care that they can’t get from the mobile dental clinics on account of not being able to get into them?
Like or Dislike:
8 
5 (+3)
Although, $70k does seem to be expensive for a ramp.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
What is wrong with a couple of pieces of 4 x 2″ to make a ramp, goodness gracious where has common sense gone?
I used to get affordable dental care at the Christchurch hospital in the late eighties to mid ninties. Even then it was being run down.
Now with private practices (even subsidised) it is just not affordable.
One dentist had left a swab in my tooth and I tried to get it investigated with a ‘dentel association’ (if they exist) no such luck!!!!
The dental profession seriously needs an overhaul!!!
It’s out of control!!!!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
While I do agree that all citizens should have access to readily available dental care and that the dentists should be covered by the same national agreement as GP’s, access to dental care is not a right by any means; it is a entitlement, or presently actually a privledge; just because the UN, or some other bunch of whackos, says that it should be a right does not make it one. A right requires force behind it and the very fact that our nation does not do such makes it not a right within our nation.
Im not sure what the situation with the ramp is, surely an aluminum ramp is dirt cheap, my first guess is that it is a case of fundimentally different vehicles. Being able to get a wheelchair in and around a mobile dental clinic is not something I would imagine possible in those I attended during my school years. Though if it is only one vehicle being purchased the cost does seem worth bearing so as to grant access to such individuals, that is assuming that it is a difference in the vehicles themselves. If not then there is really no excuse not to have a ramp.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Where do people get this “right” to dental care Mzzzz Delahunty? Theres no such thing as a right to something others must provide you…that would be slavery.
Like or Dislike:
7 
9 (-2)
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Regardless of subsequent faults with the UN, the rights framework begun with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequently elaborated with the two covenants (Civil and Political Rights, and Social and Economic Rights) and further declarations (Rights of the Child etc) represents a substantial global consensus.
Some of these rights (probably most of them, actually) relate to goods and services provided by others. This is not slavery, or anything like it.
There is a genuine debate about whether there is a universal human right to a particular level of healthcare, or opportunity to achieve a level of health status. What is not an issue is that where a right is generally acknowledged in a state (such as access to free dental care for people under 18 in New Zealand) then people with disabilities have a right to access it without discrimination. That is required both by international law, and by the NZ domestic law that gives effect to the international law (Human Rights Act and Bill of Rights Act). Perhaps the existence of this strong legal and ethical obligation to provide the service in a non-discriminatory way will sharpen minds as Catherine proposes in finding a more cost-effective solution.
With regard to the issue raised by Rainman, our healthcare sector is littered with anomalies resulting from historical accident, in which some services are paid for by the State and others are not (and some identical services paid for by the State in the case of accident but not disabling illness). Why are dental services a state responsibility for under 18s but not for those 18 and over? Why is our ambulance service mostly a voluntary one? And so on. A good focus for the future.
Like or Dislike:
9 
1 (+8)
Kevin – Big Bro is a malcontent and James is a loon.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
Kevin H,
But it is not a right. Just because the UN declares it as such does not make it so. That particular document is far better referred to as “The UN declaration of ‘things we want to see happen’ are now rights”.
A right is obtained when the conglomeration of individuals, that is the state, enforces that right, in the absence of that enforcement there is no right. The UN, and member countries, are not willing to use coercive force against states to ensure the states will enforce such “rights” and thus these are not rights on the international level. In NZ we certainly do not enforce it and thus it may not be considered a right in NZ. To call something a right and then say that it is being denied is oxymoronic.
Non-incarcerated adult citizens have a right to attempt to obtain health care privately or to obtain health care, though at substantial delay, publicly; but that is about as far as it goes under present enforcement.
The declaration of anything you hold desirable as being a “right” is nothing but ideological bullsh*t. Additionally, considering only a very small minority of the UN has actually implimented all, or even the majority, of the charter; the consensus is undermined by the fact that most members of that consensus have no foot on which to stand.
Like or Dislike:
4 
6 (-2)
The nations members of the UN in 1948 made a declaration about human rights. It is not so much a UN declaration, but one by its nation state members. Which is why the UN does not have any direct role in the matter of these human rights, there being a UN body made up of various member states.
Nation states are of course free to live up to the declaration standard or have the UN notice that they do not. Given so many members do not, they have an interest in establishing a presence on the UN body and ensuring no censure is made – apparently they can form a majority coalition to protect themselves from criticism, occasionally picking on singular states as if they were the exception to a noble human rights centred world.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
On one hand we have the statement that “access to dental health” is a right, and on the other we have Catherine arguing that that right can ONLY be provided via a government paid Mobile Clinic kitted out with mobile ramps.
To support such “rights” requires to remove rights from others. How about a right for other citizens not to have wages taken from them by force?
You are very blithe about that particular right being abused. The government is going into debt by a couple of hundred million a day. That’s not just more tax to be paid by citizens, but interest on borrowings.
So is this really the only option to guarantee the “right” to dental care?
Are there not other Dental Health Clinics, with ramps available? Are there not taxis and vehicles available to transport said people to these clinics?
This logic would say that disabled people have a right to wear clothes, so the Government needs to buy mobility enabled clothes stores. With $70,000 ramps no less.
If you want to use the excuse of compassion, or service, or moral obligation to provide help for those that need assistance, then by all means, do so.
But it isn’t a right.
That word is being abused by socialists to justify $70,000 ramps (and an endless stream of other causes, to be paid for by taking other people’s earnings without their say so.
I recently kicked in $80 towards getting a new person in our community a wheel chair. I also sent $30 off to help fund horse riding for disabled children. Didn’t need my right to spend my wages how I like to be abused to do so.
As for the cost being $70,000. That’s a fair question. Sounds like a lot. Presuming it’s a fair and reasonable charge, I can think of at least two possible reasons:
1. It’s got to be hydraulically enabled to move under the vehicle when it is in motion, and to move up to the right level to meet curbs of different heights. There are probably a whole pile of laws (endorsed by the Greens) that would prevent a young dental assistant and possibly female dentist (with generally less strength than a male, no offense, just a fact) from struggling with a non-hydraulic bits of wood strapped to the roof of the van in true Kiwi style. And just think of the work safety angle! Why, some-one could break their back struggling with metal ramps!
2. The price includes having to change the interior of the vehicle to actually fit a wheel chair and then provide facilities to help move the patient into the dental chair.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Kevin said: I would instead like to express surprise that people are arguing that people with disabilities don’t have a right to dental care.
Not quite. Three things:
1. It’s the assumption that mobile dental clinics are the only option; or that the patient is required to mount the mobile van. Why not a mobile drill unit that can be wheeled into an old age home and round to every bed (for example)
2. It’s the use of the term “right” to justify a preferred course of action.
3. An opportunity to clarify the costs of the ramp, and theorize that it might be a combination of regulations, health and safety, and structural changes that create such a high cost of providing a decent ramp.
I also reject the idea we need a new Disabled Persons Commission to deal with such issues. You’d spend a million dollars a year to look into why a ramp costs so much, when you could just ask the people who told you the price? (And take the same approach to other issues around disability – put it back on the department in question, who are already tasked to consider these things)
The issue here is, what are the alternatives, and can they be offered in a more cost effective way.
For that matter, how many disabled people access this service, and would it still exclude bed-ridden people? Maybe my idea of taking the drill to the bed rather than the bed/chair to the van is better?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Dental care should be a right for all not only as a human rights issue but in the long run it could even save money to the patient and the country on medical expences.
A mouth full of rotten teeth could cause all sorts of medical ills and if one is entitled to a heart operation why not dental treatment?
And why isn’t the Dental Association more transparent and accessable to the public? And is $400.00 justified for only 20 to 30 minuites work?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Dental care should be a right for all not only as a human rights issue but in the long run it could even save money to the patient and the country on medical expences.
So could exercise. Let’s enforce every-one’s right to exercise.
A mouth full of rotten teeth could cause all sorts of medical ills and if one is entitled to a heart operation why not dental treatment?
Look on the bright side, if gum disease causes your heart to falter, you’re in with a grin.
And why isn’t the Dental Association more transparent and accessable to the public? And is $400.00 justified for only 20 to 30 minuites work?
I had 4 trips to the dentist to sort a root canal, and it cost around $800. It involved more than 60 minutes work (your limit above) and it involved 4 people (not just the Dentist. It was in a nice room, which they presumably have to pay rent for. They used cool equipment, including xrays, and anesthetics (maybe expensive ones, because there was virtually no pain. They used several materials and after I left took the time to sterilize equipment and dispose of all the materials that are “one-shot” to maintain high health standards. They had to write up my history file and give me the bill. They had to collect GST and have their accountant work out GST returns, profit and loss statements, salaries, and depreciation on all that equipment. The list goes on. Your point? They should work for free? Or the government should cap their salary at $30,000?
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
You argue that rights only exist when they can be enforced. However, I don’t think this is by any means universally accepted. Another position is that rights can exist even if they are not enforced.
If you look at the dictionary definition of “right” you’ll find something like “a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.” (from dictionary.com). Now legal principles can often (but not always) be enforced, but there is no requirement that moral and ethical principles are enforced, yet they are still considered as rights.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Samiuela,
Actually, I argue that a right only exists when it IS enfored. Subtle but important distinction.
A right is an entitlement endowed. That right must be endowed by something and something cannot endow that which it can not give. In relation to those rights talked about here, natural rights far extended, these rights are thought variably to be endowed by god, morality, or the human condition. Natural rights are invalid as god does not enforce them, and thus they are not rights, and morality and the condition of being a human cannot enforce them and as such cannot give them.
A right must be given and enforced by some power, only legal rights have this quality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5 (-5)
‘It’s one’s dues for living in a civilised society. Of course.’
Major contradiction.A civilized society worthy of the name does not ensalve some members to others as a “right” to dental care,or education,housing,etc must do.A “right” is a moral sanction to freedom of action is a social context.The source of rights is mans life and the requiremnets of it if he is to survive and live with his fellow man.The only real,non-contradictory rights are to ones life,liberty,earned property and to pursue happiness….they impose no obligation on anyone else except a negative one..NOT to do anything to you or your property.
Individual rights (there being only individuals…humans don’t come any other way)are with every person from birth by virtue of being born human and all that goes with that fact.
It is certainly “right” to seek dental care from those offering it as a service in the market but there is no right TOO dental care…that would indeed require the enslavement of the dentist and thats obviously a violation of his rights….real rights don’t conflict…only false ones do like Delhuntys advocatings here.
Best explanation here..
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_man_right s
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
gardless of subsequent faults with the UN, the rights framework begun with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequently elaborated with the two covenants (Civil and Political Rights, and Social and Economic Rights) and further declarations (Rights of the Child etc) represents a substantial global consensus.
Some of these rights (probably most of them, actually) relate to goods and services provided by others. This is not slavery, or anything like it.”
It most certainly IS Kevin…The UN declaration is a contradictory hodge podge that cancels itself out by its appeal to nonsense.Read up to article 21 and it’s not bad as it doesn’t conflict with the negative rights I mentioned above…it poses no unchosen obligations on anyone to anyone else.But from 22 onwards it falls apart by making claims to “rights” that must impose unchosen obligations on others which is slavery no matter how you cut it.Just who is to provide these goods and services?And what if those able to don’t wish to for their own reasons?Force is the only answer left and thats what socialists down though history have always resorted to….the gun.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
It might be useful to get some facts here.
All we seem to know is that the mobile dental clinic is not accessible to someone in a wheel chair.
Yet everyone seems to assume this means it has no ramps.
As an architect I tend to think in dimensions and when I think about my last visit to the dentist I am not sure you could design a mobile dental clinic that would guarantee access to all those who use wheelchairs.
Space would be at a premium and I suspect they may well have two stations on board.
So where would you find room to park a wheelchair and provide room for the surgeons and the nurses.
This does not seem to me to be a human rights issue but one of simple cost effectiveness.
I may wrong about my assumptions but I would resist taking up strong positions until I was better informed.
My guess is that it would be more cost effective to pay for a ride in a wheel chair accessible van to a normal clinic – my own one has ramps to the rooms upstairs and plenty of room for wheel chair access in the clinics.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Was at the hospital the other day with an injury to a child and had a very interesting talk to the nurse. We were talking about hospital management and the issue of mobile dental clinics came up. Apparently somebody forgot to weigh the mobile clinic and guess what? You have to have an HT licence tow it and the on road charges are much higher than expected.
Another basic balls up in the name of “don’t come to us we’ll come to you” health care.
We can’t afford these luxuries, it is just ridiculous to waste money in this way. If there is a guarantee of quality health care at the hospital people have no problem in making there own way to get there to receive it. We shouldn’t be paying qualified health professionals to be driving around the countryside all bloody day, it is absurd.
Now you need an HT licence to be a dental nurse for crying out loud!!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Let us not lose sight of the benefits from having a mobile dental clinic service. These vehicles exist to improve the standard of dental care available to those who do not live within reasonable range of a fixed dental clinic. Access to these mobile clinics is not a right, as people choose to live in such areas knowing that not all facilities will be available. However the government is sensibly funding these mobile clinics to improve access to dental services, and the aim is surely to gain the best improvement for a given monetary sum. Spending $70,000 extra on each vehicle to meet the needs of a minority of a minority of dental care recipients is probably not cost-effective, and could reduce the number of vehicles on the road and almost certainly will reduce the number of people treated.
More cost-effective options may be to fund travel by these few people to dental clinics that can take them, or possibly to equip just a few of the mobile dental clinics with ramps and to send those ones to the few towns which have disabled people seeking dental treatment.
As for the cost – OSH and other concerns including space in a vehicle for storing a ramp could easily push the price much higher than a simple solution would cost.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Trevor has it pretty well pegged.
I would add that the “simple” solutions might include temporarily hiring a couple of big guys to lift people into the van for part of the time.
I would further observe that the likely frequency of people disabled to that degree living out in the back blocks is smaller than of them living in or around a city.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well Trevor, there used to be a dental clinic in every rural area until certain people decided to shut down all the rural schools. Seems that one wasn’t thought through to well.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
bjchip said:
“I would add that the “simple” solutions might include temporarily hiring a couple of big guys to lift people into the van for part of the time.”
Unfortunately that wouldn’t be acceptable under OSH. While it would work fine for some wheelchair users, there is a serious risk of injury to some wheelchair users if they are lifted incorrectly. Also power wheelchair users tend not to be of normal weight – some are lighter than normal while others are heavier than normal, and lifting the latter could be quite a challenge. Lifting a person into a mobile clinic would also be a challenge, with constrained access making it hard for three people to work together (patient plus lifters).
I could also add that a power wheelchair plus user could weigh 600-700 pounds (over 300kg), which can seriously affect ramp design. Also the ADA standard for wheelchair ramps is a slope of 1:12 (5 degrees), so a ramp long enough to lift a person even just 12 inches is 12 feet.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Just some extra information: the way the State has met its responsibility for dental care for primary school aged children is with school-based clinics, funded and provided through Vote: Education. In some areas, like the West Coast where Shunda and I live, this has been supplemented through Vote: Health, with mobile dental facilities for remote communities. (In our case an old caravan, very close to – or past – the end of its useful life).
During the term of the last Government a decision was made to transfer responsibility for these school-based facilities from Education to Health. A stocktake was undertaken to identify what the facilities consisted of, what their current state and value was, and what maintenance and replacement programme would be needed, to determine how much budget should be transferred. This exercise found that the facilities were in generally poor or very poor condition with major work required to bring them to an acceptable standard for delivering modern dental care.
The response has been to close many of the school-based clinics, substantially upgrade those that remain (typically in larger population centres) and invest in a number of these mobile clinics. Thus the mobile clinics will now not only serve remote communities but, indeed, most rural communities. The closure of rural schools is a factor in this development, but not the main one.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
The intention of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is to have as a starting point that no-one should be denied life’s basics – health care, education etc. If we have that shared starting point then the solutions are so much easier to find.
If these dental clinics were accessible not only would they be easily accessed by wheelchair users in a dignified way (not being lugged up the stairs) but also those with vision impairments, many elderly people who are unsteady on their feet and parents with pushchairs. What works for the minority of people with disabilities very often works for the majority too.
Bring on the Disability Commissioner Catherine!
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
I’m only repeating what the nurse told me Kevin, and I have talked to many hospital staff (non admin) that all tell a similar story. Bureaucracy is getting in the way of providing good health care, what is the answer?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Just wrote a long and carefully considered draft but lost it by hitting the wrong button while previewing. I hate it when that happens!
I wasn’t implying that the information about HT licences is wrong Shunda – I don’t know either way. But the specification, design and purchase of these mobile units (collectively by all DHBs) has involved considerable collaboration by clinical and non-clinical staff, so any error or oversight has occurred despite good process.
In general provided that administrators understand that their job is to enhance the environment for clinical staff to do theirs then great outcomes can be achieved. This is particularly if the collective focus is on improving quality (access, acceptability, effectiveness, efficiency and safety), and I have personally seen many good examples.
If these relationships get mixed up then there is potential for bad outcomes, but in my experience most complaints of “bureaucracy getting in the way of good healthcare” usually arise because a health professional resents having to change their practice or carry out an administrative task like electronic record-keeping. This in turn usually occurs because these clinical staff haven’t been adequately involved in planning and decision-making or because a clear link hasn’t been established betweeen the resented process or task and good clinical outcomes (like minimising surgical site infections, eliminating patient handover problems or speeding up discharge). Quality orientation and good collaborative planning processes would be my answer.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
“Of course, James, I respect your right to have and express an opinion. However your equation of “obligation” with “slavery” is one that is shared by few. ”
Yes… “blankout”.Turning your mind off to avoid the obvious.Its not “obligations” I am opposing here…its “Forced” obligations.Although no person is born owing unchosen obligations to anyone else…that most certainly IS slavery.It is the moral code of altruism that really lies at the bottom of this issue…the idea that one is a means to the end of others and can be sacficied to these others whenever they chose.Altruism is an evil life destroying code that negates the fact that all humans are born individuals with reason as their guide and their own self intrest as their highest value..
The State IS force…nothing else.Its the gun meant to be whielded in objective defence of peoples individual rights but when whielded to enforce the Altruist dogma tryanny and death are the inevitible results.
Like or Dislike:
3 
8 (-5)
“Indeed, Kevin, only one who partakes of the Rand koolaid would equate provision of health services to the disabled with slavery and expect to be taken seriously.”
Another not willing to think and practising blankout.So smartie….if a dental practice doesn’t have a ramp and is ordered to install one by the State against its wishs just what do you call that then?
The so called “right” of the disabled patient somehow trumps the real rights to liberty and property of the owners of the dental practice.By threatening the owners with force unless they comply it is unavoidably obvious that the practice is now in effect “enslaved” to the needs of the disabled regardless of wheather they even want to treat the disabled or not.The practice is having others forced upon them against their wishes….when that happens in a sexual context to a Woman by a Man its called rape…its the same thing in principle with the practice.Rape is wrong because its a violation of a persons liberty and property in their body…this dental issue is wrong because its also a violation of the rights to liberty and property of the clinic owners.
Now please try and think about it before getting all huffy at the comparison….the principals are the same.
Like or Dislike:
3 
7 (-4)
LOL,Rand.
She provides a useful toolkit but unfortunately she is utterly wrong. Not unlike Marx really, in both respects.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Oh, it’s a FACT that humans are born with self-interest as their highest value, is it?
Are you sure it’s not just your opinion that humans should be born with self-interest as their highest value?
Or is it just that you have self-interest as your highest value, and want to project that on others?
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
“She provides a useful toolkit but unfortunately she is utterly wrong. Not unlike Marx really, in both respects.”
Oh and your reasons are….? No? Thought so…all yap no facts.
“Oh, it’s a FACT that humans are born with self-interest as their highest value, is it?”
Yep..reality makes it so.Staying alive,prospering,raising your family well,Interacting with your fellow man by mutral consent for mutral gain…..self-interest is a virtue.Those opposed to that fact are mans enemy…they want to force and threaten to impose their own values on others.
Like or Dislike:
2 
7 (-5)
The trust also runs a car-pooling system to get people without transport or unable to drive to clinics and appointments at larger hospitals – it’s a roster of local volunteers who are paid running costs.
None of this is ‘forced’ altruism, it’s low-cost, efficient and runs on a lower -per-capita cost than practically anywhere else.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
All animals are selfish or are you trying to argue something different Sapient??
The selfishness of the individual then spreads to those close such as partner and children and then wider to the extended family and community etc.
I really am waiting for you non-selfish human beings on this post to send me all you money and then go kill you self. I mean their are to many humans on this planet and if you were not selfish wouldn’t you kill your self.
Rands concepts of selfishness are the reason why all YOU communist greens can’t seem to get your hippy communes to work.
Humans place themselves first any human being that doesn’t dies out and thanks to this wonderful thing called evolution they don’t pass their flawed genetic material on.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Turnip said – all animals are selfish …
but what about the shellfish?
I’ve seen fish that swallow their young to protect them from predators.
Protect them from predators.
How shellfish!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
“Oh, it’s a FACT that humans are born with self-interest as their highest value, is it?”
Yes Kahikatea it pretty much is.
My baby has not been considering my feelings the last couple of nights, just stands in his cot screeching at us, not crying, screeching. It is the most joyous sound, kind of like finger nails scratched down a black board combined with an angry monkey.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
“but what about the shellfish?”
Oh they are really cell-fish, not shell fish, some say shellfUsh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ve been thinking about it for 30 years, including having flirted with Randism after reading a lot of her work – actually until reading a lot of her work.
And I’ve already answered the question – civilisation.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Turnip,
WTF? I am perhaps one of the strongest proponents of the selfish human nature on this blog and have argued many time that the human is such, several times in arguments in which you participate.
Turnip and James,
Rand is wrong about that which she perceives to be rights. I have discussed why many times on this blog. I have brushed over it further up this thread.
Be it supposedly endowed by God or by the state of being human, it cannot be a right unless it is actually enforced.
Force IS legitimacy. Humans gain rights by endowing themselves with rights through the use of force and as such the only rights are those that we say we have and enforce.
Rights are by there very nature coercive; they cannot exist in the absence of coercion. James says the we cannot have a right to dental care because dental care entails impinging on the rights of others, of using coercive force. All rights involve coercive force for by enforcing a right, say that to property, you are coercing another individual to give up their freedom, in this case to use that property. You use coercion to exclude others. Under your definition there can be no rights at all. If you acknowledge any of the rights which you consider rights to be rights you acknowledge that they are rights as a result of the coercive forces involved and by extension rights can be given to anything provided the coercive force is used to ensure such.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
No actually, the mothers action is selfish also, perhaps more so than the babies, as by doing that she allows the continuation of her own genome; the programed aim of all life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Sapient – nonsense! Mothers don’t feed their babies ‘to allow the continuation of her own genome’, they do it because their baby demands it and they respond to that demand. Added to that, usually, they love the tiny things and they give, selflessly, to them. Are you trying to demean Mums, mock their selflessness?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Greenfly,
Like sex it is the satisfaction of an urge or the avoidance of a displeasure. These are programed into us for the continuation of our genome. Said satisfaction is selfish.
As to love, doing something good for that which one loves is satisfying and thus thus selfish. The reason for the evolution of that satisfaction from a seemingly altrusistic act being that such ‘altruism’ benefits the self by benefiting the group and the possibility of themselves receiving such assistance in the future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
The satisfaction of an urge to do something selfless must confuse the issue for you Sapient!
Just because you receive satisfaction from an action doesn’t mean you were primarily motivated by selfishness – surely you don’t have to be made miserable by your actions before you can count them as selfless?
What a miserly outlook!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Greenfly,
I would say that people are always primarily motivated by self interest. That those actions which are motivated may benefit others more than they directly benefit ones self does not make the action selfless, just evolutionarily beneficial on the whole.
I might even go so far as to say that a selfless action is entirely against human nature; the human will always choose, of possible actions, that which they consider, conciously or not, to benefit themselves more than other options. Even when the mother sacrifices herself so that her child may live does the mother choose an option that does benefit her primary purpose.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Sapient wrote:
“Like sex it is the satisfaction of an urge or the avoidance of a displeasure. These are programed into us for the continuation of our genome. Said satisfaction is selfish.”
It doesn’t fit my definition of ’selfish’.
Richard Dawkins described the evolutionary force that created these instincts as selfishness on behalf of genes, but that’s not the same as saying the people with these instincts are being selfish.
Evolution doesn’t create instincts with a perfect imprint of gene selfishness – it just creates instincts with a statistical tendency to help pass on the genes, but people are then influenced by those instincts irrespective of whether it helps pass on the genes in that particular case or not. For example, people have sex because they find it fun. The tendency to find sex fun evolved to help pass on genes, but mostly people do it because they find it fun, and even go out of the way to avoid getting pregnant.
In conclusion, the leap of logic from ‘genes are selfish’ to ‘people are selfish’ doesn’t work.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
“Even when the mother sacrifices herself so that her child may live does the mother choose an option that does benefit her primary purpose.”
It benefits her primary purpose from the point of her genes, but not her self-interest as an individual.
And consider the situation if a woman sacrifices herself to save the life of a child that she considers to be hers, but who is biologically her lesbian lover’s child. This makes no sense from a selfish gene viewpoint (even the lesbian relationship doesn’t make much sense from a selfish gene viewpoint). But it still happens, driven by instincts that developed from instincts that evolved to serve selfish genes.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Yeah kahikatea! Nice use of the ‘lesbian lover’s child’ ploy – classic!
Sapient – is your purpose in putting foward your argument selfish and if it is, how can we trust it, given that it’s you who stands to gain from having us accept it, not us?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Gotta sleep … now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kahikatea,
I am not making that jump in the first place; my point is that we as human beings, not our genes, do that which we perceive to most benefit ourselves. Our genes have crafted us this way through share statistics but it is not the genes themselves which are selfish. The genes make certain things pleasurable or painful, satisfying or unsatisfying, because, as a general heuristic, those things will tend to assist in the proliferation of those genes: pure statistics.
We have evolved to follow that which is pleasurable and avoid that which is not pleasurable. Our genes have merely ensured that most which is pleasurable, at least in our evolutionary past, helps with their continuance.
And thus, into her genes, becomes programed a, apprarently impulsive, tendancy to throw ones self in front of a lion. An impulse is naught but an the reaction of the pleasure/pain system to an overwhemling differential between pleasure and pain. It is not so different, though the degree is far greater, than the impulses felt by those with OCD. People will utterly destroy their lives so as to slightly decrease the displeasure perceived to be experianced by not performing their rituals.
Throwing herself infront of the lion for her lovers child is merely a misfiring of this system as this system works on heuristics. This system applying not just to ones own children but generally to those of relatives: those whom share more genes. It is selfish because it is reacting to that which is pleasurable and painful but it is such because of the benefit to genes. Still selfish.
My definition of selfish is obviously that the motivation for the action is perceived self gratification, immediate or delayed. It would seem yours is far more restricted; what is it?
Greenfly,
It is like masturbation.
I receive substantial gratification from challenge, from reforming my ideas, from learning, and from increasing my skills.
If you can trust it or not is something for you to decide. I decide if I can trust someone based on my perceptions of their motivations and their ability plus a degree of caution. The question is what do you stand to gain, what do you stand to loose, and given the arguement what is the chance you will gain or loose from trusting the arguement?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
“The trust also runs a car-pooling system to get people without transport or unable to drive to clinics and appointments at larger hospitals – it’s a roster of local volunteers who are paid running costs.
None of this is ‘forced’ altruism, it’s low-cost, efficient and runs on a lower -per-capita cost than practically anywhere else.”
Sonuds like the free market in action…people CHOOSING to help others out of benevolance and empathy….all well and good if its truly voluntary.
A Mother feeding her child is not “sacrificing” anything..if the child is very dear to her so its actually selfinterested of her…not selfless.
All humans have a hirachy of values wheather the know it or not.And they never “sacrifice” a greater one to a lesser one…unless forced to do so…which Altuism says is the moral good.
Often its in an emergency situation that ones values are reveled…the man who jumps in front of a speeding car to save his son for example reveals that his son’s life and wellbeing are a higher value to him than his own life and wellbeing.In the case of the breastfeeding Mother one assumes she choose to have the child because she wanted it…it was a value TO HER that outweighed all others she held.However there are cases like the DPB etc where some Women have children they DON”T value as much as a benefit to spend on what they really DO value…booze,drugs,partying etc etc…no not all but many.
Sapient:”Force IS legitimacy. Humans gain rights by endowing themselves with rights through the use of force and as such the only rights are those that we say we have and enforce.”
Bollocks….Rights require no force to implement them.Its only when someone else “initiates” force against you that you are justified in responding with force in a defensive capacity…your right to life carries the corollary “right” to defend it from threat.
“Rights are by there very nature coercive; they cannot exist in the absence of coercion.”
Bollocks again.Rights exist because people exist.And they exist before ever coercion is attempted.Rights are “always there in the background” as it were and are only bought forward for recognition when violated.
“James says the we cannot have a right to dental care because dental care entails impinging on the rights of others, of using coercive force.”
Exactly…it requires acontradiction…and the objective universe about us does not support contradictions.
“All rights involve coercive force for by enforcing a right, say that to property, you are coercing another individual to give up their freedom, in this case to use that property. You use coercion to exclude others.”
No one else who never worked, or arrived first on that property ever had a right to it.Human beings are not ghosts…we are material beings requiring material possessions to live and prosper.Property rights are indespensible in any society that claims to be civilised.They deliniate who owns what and who doesn’t therefore preventing conflict from arising.Its when you don’t have recognised property rights that you get poverty,violence and war.
“Force and mind are opposites…morality ends where a gun begins”
Ayn Rand
Like or Dislike:
2 
7 (-5)
James,
The idea of a natural/moral right is a moral judgement, a ’should’; an ‘ought’.
All oughts are without basis due to an infinate regression known as the diallelus. Essentially what this means is that each ought only stands up presupposing another ought, and, since it is not possible for there to be any single foundational ought that lacks the need for another ought to back it up, there is no legitimate ought. Thus no ‘natural’/'moral’ rights; it is totally impossible.
The only rights which may be considered to exist are those enfored,the legal rights, as that very enforcement ensures their existence. These legal rights can be anything at all, often they parallel the moral rights simply because moral systems have evolved because of the benefit they offer. The Rand system is a ideological/moralistic system no different to that which the UN expresses and kevin would seem to hold dear.
I will post a small essay on this matter latter if I can find it. An essay which I wrote awhile ago to explain this.
Everyone has the freedom to do whatever they are capable of buy definition of them being capable of it. A liberty is obtained when the conglomeration of individuals agrees not to protect a negative freedom and a right is obtained when that conglomeration agrees not to exercise positive freedoms. These being enforced by said conglomeration.
By declaring your right to own you are removing from others through the use of coercive force, their freedom to use that over which you declare ownership. In the absence of your declaration they would be able to use it, in the presence of your ownership they would be able to use it but you use force against them to stop them doing so. You are using violence against them in stopping them from using it as they are in trying to steal your goods. If they were to sit in the middle of your lawn you would be using force against them when you pull out your gun and tell them to leave. Ownership is naught but a claim to something enforced by force.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
On second thought I will just post a small section as the implications are mostly irrelevant and those that have are relevant have pretty much been covered already.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
The fallacies of Randian thought include that it neglects the reality that the group is a more potent instrument of survival than the individual. That’s not an imaginary construct, that’s real. The individual settler armed with guns and dynamite and modern science is, eventually, dead meat when confronting a tribe of savages.
That’s reality. It has nothing to do with right and wrong.
The implication is that we must gather together in groups.
The next reality she neglects is that the larger the group the more survival positive it is. The tribe of savage individuals, even if it has managed to obtain guns, is eventually doomed if it comes into conflict with an entity like a nation, with an army. No matter that the individuals in the tribe are tougher and stronger than the soldiers that confront them. The organization has the insurmountable advantage of numbers and the further advantage of discipline.
Rand employs magical solutions that you might regard as irrelevant, to the problems that these realities impose. Galt’s motor isn’t a real thing. If you had followed the notion of money-as-work you’d have recognized that her solution to the economics of the enclave involved not only the magical nature of the motor but also the introduction of an unlimited supply of money to feed the inhabitants of the valley.
Rand ignores the nature of humans who work in groups. All members of her little group swear to something that they must HONESTLY accept in totality, in order to be members of the group. There is not one dishonest person in her group. The group is in fact, not capable of tolerating dishonest people. It can’t contain people who are thieves or con-artists or scoundrels. If it includes such people the need for something very like a government becomes quite obvious.
It has no method of choosing leaders or making collective decisions. It has no means of coping with the destruction of the commons either. It is a fantasy based on ideal people who are perfectly honest and in complete agreement with one another over what is best to do as a group. In this way it is exactly the same as the fantasy people on whom Karl Marx based communism… and indeed it is MORE wrong.
… more wrong because while there is an example of communism having built a nation recorded in history, never mind that it was subverted from within even before it reached maturity, there is NO history of a libertarian state made of up real people, having grown anywhere in time or space.
Which ought to give you a moment’s pause. If this social model is so powerful and good, why has it not taken over the planet?
People are not the cardboard cutouts that Rand and Marx like to play with.
I’m going to leave you with that. Sapient does more to the pure-logic side. I observe some more practical issues.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
It’s clear then, that Rodney is disqualified from the Randian crew.
(I do the trite).
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Sapient wrote: “My definition of selfish is obviously that the motivation for the action is perceived self gratification, immediate or delayed. It would seem yours is far more restricted; what is it?”
I was using a definition which excludes fulfilling a desire to do something which helps or pleases someone else. If you define fulfilling a desire to help or please someone else as selfish behaviour, then you end up with a definition whereby everything people can do can be considered selfish, so saying that people act out of selfishness becomes useless for predicting behaviour, and useless for deriving political principles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I strongly recommend “The Origins of Virtue” by Matt Ridley.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Kahikatea,
, is that it immediatly colours everything a shade of grey and puts it less in the round of logic than of emotion; the only area where my quotents are near norm levels.
Fair enough, though if one neglects the obvious benefit to self one misses out on what is perhaps the most important part of the interaction; the motivation.
I can see where you are coming from though I do wonder: If I were to perform sexual acts on another individual because I gain gratification from giving another individual pleasure, that would probally count as relativly selfless and, while not correct under my definition, I can accept that; If I were to do the same because I expect that it will increase the chances of my receiving sexual gratification in the future would it still be selfless? I still expect to gain from it and that gain is still the primary motivation though I would consider it selfish rather than selfless as the emphasis is more on reward as a result of latter taking than on reward as a result of the giving itself. Am I on the right track here?
My only real problem with your definition, other than it not being my definition
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It takes a group to define what “ought” to be, in terms of rights belonging to each individual in it.
Groups called nations determined what ought to be in 1948 – they agreed amongst themeselves what ought to be for each human being in each nation.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Sapient wrote:
“Fair enough, though if one neglects the obvious benefit to self one misses out on what is perhaps the most important part of the interaction; the motivation.”
Yep, but you can still say that everyone has a motivation for what they do, and classify in terms of different kinds of motivation.
“I can see where you are coming from though I do wonder: If I were to perform sexual acts on another individual because I gain gratification from giving another individual pleasure, that would probally count as relativly selfless and, while not correct under my definition, I can accept that; If I were to do the same because I expect that it will increase the chances of my receiving sexual gratification in the future would it still be selfless? I still expect to gain from it and that gain is still the primary motivation though I would consider it selfish rather than selfless as the emphasis is more on reward as a result of latter taking than on reward as a result of the giving itself. Am I on the right track here?”
Yes. Maybe we could say the second version is selfish. But I think the definition of ’selfish’ that my mother taught me was different again – her definition was that it’s only selfish if it ONLY benefits yourself, so doing something nice for someone else could not be considered selfish by that definition, unless it was likely to backfire on that person in the future.
Another example I’ve though of is to consider why Mother Teresa dedicated her life to helping poor people in Caluctta. I’ve thought of 4 possible reasons: (1) she got emotional rewards from seeing her actions helping them, (2) she had feelings of guilt if she didn’t do the best she could to help, (3) she liked being seen as saintly, or (4) she liked the thought that she would later be rewarded in heaven for what she was doing. By Sapient’s definition these are all selfish motives, by my definition I would say only the 4th one is, by my mum’s definition none of them are. That’s getting a bit off the question of selfishness, but I just thought it was interesting as an example of the complexity of motivation for acts that I would classify as selfless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
SPC,
That may be so but the ‘ought’ which they define is ultimately shown arbitary as a result of the diallelus. The idea that they are natural rended invalid through the same process. Thus, though they may define it, it has no standing as a natural right and no standing as a right at all unless they make it a legal right through the use of coercive force. They are unwilling to use such force and thus the proposed rights are totally without basis. It may be nice to have them but they can not be called rights.
Kahikatea,
I think your mothers definition suffers from the opposite of mine in that, while mine tightly limits selfless acts, hers tightly limits selfish acts. It does, though, have a elegant simplicity to it; and I do love elegant simplicity.
As to Mother Teresa, it was my understanding that she believed that by helping those individuals, and esspecially by being around the pain, suffering and death, she believed herself to be aiding her approach to enlightenment and the rewards associated with such. I would classify her as a selfish individual under any of the three definitions as it is quite argueable that many of the restrictions she placed on those she gave abode actually inflicted harm on them and their families in their last days.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Sapient – how did the restrictions she placed on those she gave abode actually inflicted harm on them and their families in their last days.
make Mother Teresa ’selfish’? Wrong-headed, I can understand, but selfish?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly,
Well if one inflicts perceived harm on another for ones own perceived personal benefit it probally qualifies as selfish under most definitions.
As to how she did this, I am not entirely sure as it is not a subject that holds my interest in the slightest. What little I have heard is through documentries and Penn and Teller, the latter of which was very critical of her work, as were many of the former. I think the idea rests around seperating the people from their families in their dying days.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But sapient, the nations can choose to enforce them, and if they do the UN is left with naught to do – but applaud. And if they do not choose to do so, the UN can choose to either notice, or not notice, that the “oughts” for humanity do not occur in that nation.
Even if the rights of man are posed as “unnatural”, as if what was natural came before the group existed …
NTBTTS warning
oh my gosh man and woman were alone and naked in the perfect natural world of Rousseau and then along came the Leviathan who shared with them knowledge about their rights … .
But for these rights to be “secure”, they needed to be enforced by law and this meant an authority over man. And so as man wanted these rights they gave the Levaithan authority over them to secure them. And so the divine right of the king beast was born. And they were clothed and knew the law and their rights.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient – is a traffic officer, in dishing out tickets to speeding drivers (getting tickets harms drivers in many ways; humiliation, loss of cash, inconvenience etc.) for his own personal benefit (he gets paid for his work), selfish?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC,
If a nation does choose to enforce them then they become legal rights and are thus rights. As I have said previously legal rights will often parallel perceptions of natural rights because those perceptions have been arrived at due to perceptions that benefit would result from their presence.
The social contract has evolved into us, it is a crucial piece of all primate societies and features highly in pretty much every species which interacts as a group. What is the Alpha wolf but king of his pack? The state of nature is theoretical, in practice such benefit is obtained from such cooperation that there is a substantial evolutionary advantage and any groups not practicing it are soon eliminated.
Though, I’m not really sure what your trying to get at.
Greenfly,
Hmmm, using kahakateas definition I would actually consider that anywhere between highly selfless to highly selfish. If the cop just gets his jollies from exerting power over others and readily tickets anyone he can then it is highly selfish regardless of the results while a cop which does so because he believes such action to be protecting the population would be selfless as the population is benefited and the damage done to the individual, one could argue, is self inflicted much as russian roulette.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
So, we’ve covered off the other options around mobile dentistry units then?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
I was going to reply to Sapients and BJ’s metaphysical-contradictory nonsense but as I see my last reply was “hidden”…(meaning what? That differing opinions so upset the dears they are not up to even seeing them) I won’t bother and I withdraw from this thread in disgust.
Censorship enacted…so moral victory to me.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
Tetchy James, and revealing! You disgust too easily and claim moral victory where there was none! No wonder you faded.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
James –
You can’t get out of it that easily. You aren’t being censored. The readers themselves are refusing to bother. The blog however, allows you to post as you wish.
I don’t leave my “hidden” setting on the default of -5. I set it to -11, a level that almost nobody is able to achieve… so none of your replies are hidden from me… it is an option set at the dark green bar that separates the original posts from the comments.
I am perfectly happy to hear what you have to say. The fact that the average reader here has dismissed you as making no sense is not censorship and is not relevant to your argument.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog – Valis? If people perceive this as “censorship”, however unjustified that perception, we have a problem. Not because we are censoring, I know we aren’t, but because SOME people will spin it that way… and after the nonsense with the Electoral Finance thing others are all too ready to take up the chant. Personally I think that anyone accusing us of censorship has rocks in their head, but this is not about my opinion… it is about public perception. Could you have a think about this? First time its come up,,, but perhaps we should re-think that default setting of -5 in light of this?
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
First arrival confers a right to property? Who had this demented brainstorm? It may be customary in some circles, but it has nothing to do with a “right”.
I note that in some respects it has been abandoned among civilized nations. The USA did not “claim” the moon. The land is a commons. We are of it, and we return to it, we can obtain temporary exclusive use to it, but it cannot be regarded as property to permanently dispose of or pollute.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
bj – the moons is a commons? I smell tragedy.
The flag thing wasn’t a claim? I guess they felt assured there’d be no challenge for ownership from anyone that such a claim would frighten, so didn’t feel the need to overtly claim the rock. Bet there was plenty of discusion over it though!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
I reckon it’s hilarious and if visitors are so delicate that they are offended by being whakamaa’d, it’s even funnier!
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
I think Frog should get rid of the fading comment function. I voted thumbs-down for James’s post as a comment on the blinkered nature of his reasoning, not because I wanted it to be made invisible.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
james is one of those actites..
meh..! to what he thinks..
(and his little tantrum..)
as for the fade-thing..?
can’t see the point..really..
it’s just a frippery..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
It isn’t about me, or James or whether it is amusing or whether it is censorship. What it actually means is that casual visitors could take the claim of censorship as the reality. Misperceptions are common on that side of the aisle. One could easily call them all reality challenged, but it is probably just a pharmaceutical deficiency
Even though it has always been false, the claim has been quite harmful to the party. I would love to get those who accuse us of it somewhere they can be properly berated, but if I were to give it to them on Kiwiblog I WOULD be censored. Idiots are worshipped there and reason is rejected out of hand.
I am suggesting setting the default high enough that nobody gets faded and people who want to can set it lower as THEIR choice which makes it quite clear about what is happening.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The entire planet is a commons. The land areas we all stand on and build on are a “commons” and the notion of ownership of any piece of it is an elaborate fiction.
YOU had nothing to do with it 200 years ago and you will have nothing to do with it 200 years from now. It will remain. You will be gone. The notion that it belongs to you is nonsense. You belong to the land. The moon is just another piece of land.
One may establish leasehold rights, but the land must be regarded as owned by ALL of us.
?
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Sapient
Take your first moral principle as “the survival of intelligent life in the universe”. Everything else follows.
I am not fond of overly logical analysis. At some point we are humans, not Vulcans.
Logic is an excellent tool (hammer), but not everything is a syllogism (nail). Use it, but observe reality as well, because the premise you use is not the same as reality, and logical results will eventually and inevitably diverge.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
…perhaps we should re-think that default setting of -5 in light of this?
OK, will consider this, bj, as I think your argument for it to be more opt-in than opt-out is a reasonable one (and not because I have much sympathy for supposed deep thinkers who can’t spot the “Click here to see” link right next to “Hidden due to low comment rating”).
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
frog..
how about programming a general debate thread to pop up every couple of days..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Thanks Frog.
I don’t have much sympathy for them either, but I don’t want them to even be able to IMAGINE they have a leg to stand on while we’re cutting them off at the knees.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
…and yes Greenfly… they ARE being a bit precious about this given that the comment has NOT been removed, merely hidden, with controls available to reveal it in all its putrescent glory.
I don’t want them hiding behind it… and I don’t want them going off and claiming they were “censored” here when they slink back under the rocks where they are normally found. It takes too much time and effort to establish the truth once the lie has been told… and someone who casually visiting to check WILL find comments hidden and not even bother to read.
The casual check should reveal the lie for what it is IMHO.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
NZ is noticeably gappy if you land at the International Terminal – and, well, it sends a good ole’ third world message out there which is, i suspect, unnecessary….the people have no bread
Cake, anyone?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BJ,
My moral principle is very similar and I have discussed it here many times. I just find it incredibly important to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a non-arbitary moral system and by extension no such thing as a natural right as those whom claim such rights are everywhere and make a great mess of things.
Reality is more important than emotional comfort; at least to me. To not acknowledge reality is to not do all you can to better the life of your off-spring.
Not every thing can be logically deduced if we as ‘why should we do this’ but if we ask ‘what is the best way to do this given these goals’ and throw in some knowledge then everything becomes solvable. But by imposing an artificial block in logic such as the primary moral you propose, which I do, one is able to use logic to solve any problem when that logic is combined with correct propositions, even an ought. Everything can be made a syllogism, its just some need, or are enhanced by, knowledge (tongs) to form the final product.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
After reading the first few “hidden” comments, I assumed they were the good ones, that you opened up to enjoy like a scrumptious chocolate bar.
Some-one click on my comment red thumbs and wrap them up for Christmas!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Off-beat Zen Tiger
Finds treasures ‘mongst our discards
Thumbs his nose at us
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
” (and not because I have much sympathy for supposed deep thinkers who can’t spot the “Click here to see” link right next to “Hidden due to low comment rating”).”
Frog, even though I am sometimes, how shall we say it, an “occasional” antagonist on this blog
I have to say you run a pretty tight ship, I think you are fair and you and your hidden froglings deserve to be congratulated, keep up the good work.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
“Reality is more important than emotional comfort; at least to me. To not acknowledge reality is to not do all you can to better the life of your off-spring.”
Yes sapient! I was discussing this very issue in depth with someone the other day. But how do we really define reality? The insecure person really does believe everybody is out to get them. How do we encourage people to have good mental “hygiene” in a society that says it is not necessary?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Keep them away from television.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Thanks, Shunda.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda,
Well in truth, in true Socrates fashion, we can never know reality; it is logically impossible assuming that our senses, or our interpretation of our senses, can be flawed. We can however use our experience, logic, and experimentation to estimate reality; empiricism being the the best method I have yet encountered to do so.
I think that if we encourage parents to use methods of teaching which imprint the superior cognitive styles we will be off to a flying start. If we can get kindergarten teachers and primary school teachers to do the same we should obtain further benefit. If we, additionally, teach critical thinking and logic in intermediate and through high-school we should pretty much have it cinched. The teaching of these, especially the cognitive styles, should vastly assist our children in learning and in any achievement in life.
As to mental health, the therapy-based treatment that is often the most effective, in almost all disorders which are treatable via therapy, is cognitive behavioural therapy; a therapy that teaches patients to think in a different matter which is more adaptive, more logical.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
For good mental hygiene, brush with reason Shunda. Either pure reason or sapients preferred mix with empiricism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient wrote: “If we, additionally, teach critical thinking and logic in intermediate and through high-school we should pretty much have it cinched. The teaching of these, especially the cognitive styles, should vastly assist our children in learning and in any achievement in life.”
obviously teaching logic and critical thinking will make people better at finding the truth. But will it make them happier or more successful at what they want to do? Or does less logical thinking have advantages?
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Kahikatea,
Well I certainly found that when I tempered my logic with emotion I had a higher standard deviation in terms of happiness, though the mean stayed the same. As a logical person I find the insight it grants at times to be depressing but that in itself is due to a cognitive bias, ironically a lack of logic, instilled in my in my youth which results in a depressive interpritation of events.
On the whole the psychologcial evidence would seem to suggest that it decreases the deviation in emotion but, because of its ability to eliminate cognitive bias, tends to help with psychological problems and happiness in general; especially considering the unhappy events thus avoided. I would say more successful at almost anything so long as that anything involves some degree of challenge; there is a very large body of evidence relating to the strong relation between IQ, logic, etc. and ability to achieve ones aims.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
The idea that access to dental care is a human right comes from the same line of thinking that there is a right to free to air rugby broadcasts, broadband internet etc etc. It is a constant claim for taxpayers to be forced to pay for what people want, rather than to let people choose what to do with their own money, including helping those who cannot afford whatever it is.
The tragedy is that it demeans the term human right when there are genuine human rights, like freedom of speech, which are fundamental and cost nobody at ALL, put alongside what is essentially just an argument for redistribution of wealth, dressed up as a “right”, as if you can’t argue whether it should happen or not.
The simple truth is the Greens want taxpayer funded dental care and taxpayer funded accessibility for all who are disabled. It isn’t a “right” because an MP says it is so.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Nice try LS but the petals here will just “hide” you as they want you “out from under your rock into the open and exposed to scrutiny”.
Yes I know that makes no sense to you,me and most thinking people but apparently it does on their planet….
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
LibertyScott
I almost said at least a part of this. That it demeans the term “human right”, because it does, but at the time I was looking at it I didn’t have the time to engage fully.
Then when I did, James was making a more Randian argument which distracted me from the particular truth. This isn’t a human right.
It has much more (as a right) to do with the notion of egalitarian distribution of dental care than the notion of a human right. Which makes it a “redistribution of wealth” issue (as you observe) and as such a socially determined, rather than human, right. If the society wants it, that’s all well and good, but the cost to the society has to be well understood… and it seldom is.
Which is why you get a rec from me. We can argue about the cost and the reasoning behind this redistribution some other time. I am agreeing with you that it is not a “human right”. Thanks for reminding me
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
James
Did you not notice that your responses were read and answered and not automatically hidden? That there is a choice you make at the top of the comments that says what level of “ignore” is set and that there is a notation that tells us to click to see the hidden comment? Did you notice that we’ve argued about the default setting of that level specifically because your comments WERE hidden? This isn’t about censorship James, it is about a convenience. Possibly too convenient but as I run around with my default setting high enough that nothing gets blocked I never even noticed that you’d run afoul of it… until you claimed censorship.
We don’t actually do that a lot, you see. Despite the propaganda machine over there on the right.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Leaving disabled rights alone for a moment (wheelchair access is woeful in most countries, even London doesn’t have wheelchair access at every tube station) you have to remember that most governments view dental care as a lower priority than general healthcare.
Sad but true, just see the lines of people queueing up for several blocks to register when a new dentist arrives in town in the UK.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think it should be mandatory that dental treatment (whether publicly or privately funded) should be free of amalgam fillings.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I used to get affordable dental care at the Christchurch hospital in the late eighties to mid ninties. Even then it was being run down.
Now with private practices (even subsidised) it is just not affordable.
One dentist had left a swab in my tooth and I tried to get it investigated with a ‘dentel association’ (if they exist) no such luck!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)