| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
READY FOR GRADING (but please continue to comment!!) |
| | Perhaps a definition of what you mean by "harm" when referring to the law would be helpful? -- SandorMarton - 05 Apr 2008 |
|
<
< | 1. Let medicine lead the way. e.g. Surgery, like litigation, wastes resources. Society can't cap the costs because it doesn't know, "What's too much to spend, on health, or on justice?" |
>
> | 1. Let medicine lead the way. |
| |
- My dad once accepted a mafioso stroke patient who explained, "I knew I had a problem when I wasn't able to pull the trigger."
|
|
<
< | |
>
> |
- Medicine, like litigation, wastes resources. Society can neither cap the costs on health nor on justice, until it knows (ha!), "What's too much to spend?" for example, cheap MRIs create incidentalomas -- making people "likely sick" faster than it's allowing us to heal them.
|
| | 2. If the surgeon-body-organ relationship is analogous to the lawyer-society-body relationship, then I don't need to define harm. |
| | -- DanielHarris - 06 Apr 2008 |
|
<
< | Sigh. "How or why" doesn't make it an abstract question. A question is a question. Here's 36 million google hits. QED. Three strikes, you're out. |
>
> | Sigh. A question is a question. "How or why" doesn't make it abstract. It makes it confusing. |
| | |
|
<
< | RE your email: Now that I've marked this essay as ready for grading -- and because I do expect Eben to grade me on the comments -- please don't ask this genre of question again without discussing it first by email. (Strange how you juxtaposed those two justifications, which ought to be pleaded in the alternative. I'm curious to know which you think least justifies frivolous posting, but not curious enough to ask -- I'd have to anticipate your reply, whereas I should be studying.) |
>
> | In the context of my own paper, only I, the author, have the right to not think hard about the questions I ask, and for a good reason:
- I ask questions of the anonymous public. If they stay silent, the majority has SPOKEN, and I've hurt myself.
- But individuals who comment on my paper are asking questions directly of ME.
- When you ask a bad question, the balance of doubt against the question-asker is fifty-fifty, rather than 70 to one.
- Your stratagem (or error) threatens, not an amorphous public, but ME, a non-anonymous individual.
Anyhow, here's 36 million google hits. QED. Three strikes, you're out.
RE your email: Now that I've marked this essay as ready for grading -- and because I do expect Eben to grade me on the comments -- please don't ask this genre of question again without our discussing it first by email. (Strange how you juxtaposed those two justifications for your telling me to "respond on my own time," when you'd have to plead them in the alternative.) Anyhow, I don't regard meta-questions about your questions about my paper to be members of [X], i.e. topics relevant to my paper. Let other people have a chance at bat. |
| | -- AndrewGradman - 06 Apr 2008 |
| | Since when do you get to solicit comments and then simply delete the ones you don't like rather than responding to them? If this wiki is supposed to be about free and open dialogue to facilitate learning, why should you be the arbiter of what the rest of us do and do not get to benefit from?
-- KateVershov - 06 Apr 2008 |
|
>
> |
Kate, in light of my previous post, this is also conversation we should be having by phone or email. Daniel, let someone ELSE have a chance at bat.
-- AndrewGradman - 06 Apr 2008 |
| |
|