Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Yamato

Israeli MDs Harvesting Human Organs

62 posts in this topic

Israeli MDs harvesting organs for international trafficking ring

Costa Rican authorities announced on Wednesday that they had broken up an international organ trafficking ring that worked with Israeli doctors and specialized in selling kidneys to patients in Israel and East Europe.

Full article:

http://www.haaretz.c...remium-1.530848

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if organ donation after you died was mandatory, unless you signed an opt-out clause, this kind of thing wouldn't happen.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Costa Rican government should prosecute them if it's a crime. The Chinese seem a bit more casual about it. I remember some kid selling one of his for an iPad. It's sad for the donor to be so needy and the patients to be so desperate but if the doc is providing a service for both and there is consent, I'm not sure where the crime is.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the doc is providing a service for both and there is consent, I'm not sure where the crime is.

.

i was kinda wondering the same thing AT.

there was a guy from my home town who had a kidney removed because he figured he had a spare one, and would donate the other to whomever needed it, without them having to wait for years & years until he died!

altruism at its finest.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if organ donation after you died was mandatory, unless you signed an opt-out clause, this kind of thing wouldn't happen.

You mean if organ donation was mandatory where this kind of thing happens, it wouldn't be happening where it does. This kind of thing doesn't happen in plenty of other places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sad for the donor to be so needy and the patients to be so desperate but if the doc is providing a service for both and there is consent, I'm not sure where the crime is.

I could say the same thing about a plethora of needed goods going to Gaza. So now we have a double standard for trafficking too, big surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could say the same thing about a plethora of needed goods going to Gaza. So now we have a double standard for trafficking too, big surprise.

You are comparing kidneys to rocket parts?

It really takes a fanatic to make that jump.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could say the same thing about a plethora of needed goods going to Gaza. So now we have a double standard for trafficking too, big surprise.

Lame - even for you....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are comparing kidneys to rocket parts?

It really takes a fanatic to make that jump.

Yeah the only thing Gazans need smuggle is rocket parts.

Lame - even for you....

What's lame about the truth, Zionist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean if organ donation was mandatory where this kind of thing happens, it wouldn't be happening where it does. This kind of thing doesn't happen in plenty of other places.

.

if it was mandatory worldwide Yam.

there are thousands of people on transplant waiting lists worldwide, and thousands of people dying each day.

if a resolution was passed, some sort of UN mandate or something, that everyone on earth should be considered an organ donor, but with each individual's right to opt out, then thousands of unnecessary deaths could be prevented, and the trade in organ trafficking would become obsolete overnight.

i fail to see how that would be anything but a good thing?

You mean if organ donation was mandatory where this kind of thing happens, it wouldn't be happening where it does. This kind of thing doesn't happen in plenty of other places.

.

if it was mandatory worldwide Yam.

there are thousands of people on transplant waiting lists worldwide, and thousands of people dying each day.

if a resolution was passed, some sort of UN mandate or something, that everyone on earth should be considered an organ donor, but with each individual's right to opt out, then thousands of unnecessary deaths could be prevented, and the trade in organ trafficking would become obsolete overnight.

i fail to see how that would be anything but a good thing?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

if it was mandatory worldwide Yam.

there are thousands of people on transplant waiting lists worldwide, and thousands of people dying each day.

if a resolution was passed, some sort of UN mandate or something, that everyone on earth should be considered an organ donor, but with each individual's right to opt out, then thousands of unnecessary deaths could be prevented, and the trade in organ trafficking would become obsolete overnight.

i fail to see how that would be anything but a good thing?

.

if it was mandatory worldwide Yam.

there are thousands of people on transplant waiting lists worldwide, and thousands of people dying each day.

if a resolution was passed, some sort of UN mandate or something, that everyone on earth should be considered an organ donor, but with each individual's right to opt out, then thousands of unnecessary deaths could be prevented, and the trade in organ trafficking would become obsolete overnight.

i fail to see how that would be anything but a good thing?

He's not concerned with the issue of transplantation, just Israel bashing, as usual. I think the idea was to promulgate the image of profit driven Jew doctors maiming unsuspecting children... fits a certain narrative - never mind it's consensual and helps all parties concerned.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if it was mandatory worldwide

there are thousands of people on transplant waiting lists worldwide, and thousands of people dying each day.

if a resolution was passed, some sort of UN mandate or something, that everyone on earth should be considered an organ donor, but with each individual's right to opt out, then thousands of unnecessary deaths could be prevented, and the trade in organ trafficking would become obsolete overnight.

i fail to see how that would be anything but a good thing?

Mandatory worldwide unless they individually opt out? Who's going to enforce that, pray tell? What a moral hazard to the NWO that would slippery slope into.

How about we make it mandatory worldwide for people to give up their estates and their life savings then? So people in desperate need of whatever can get the help they need?

Why stop at just human organs? Because Israel did it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not concerned with the issue of transplantation, just Israel bashing, as usual. I think the idea was to promulgate the image of profit driven Jew doctors maiming unsuspecting children... fits a certain narrative - never mind it's consensual and helps all parties concerned.

As usual, I'm interested in finding good principle, not humping the Zionist excuse mill every time Israel gets caught in another crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As usual, I'm interested in finding good principle,

.

it doesn't seem that way.

i gave you an example of a 'good principle' and you unsuccessfully tried to pick it apart, which i will show below.

.

not humping the Zionist excuse mill every time Israel gets caught in another crime.

.

it seems that way Yam.....

.

Mandatory worldwide unless they individually opt out? Who's going to enforce that, pray tell?

.

it's the easiest thing in the world to "enforce" Yam.

most people, when they die, do so in hospital, or an ambulance, or in a situation where they can be taken to a hospital quickly, to remove the organs where they're still viable.

very few people die in the middle of nowhere, eaten by tigers, or are killed & dumped, and not found until they've rotted, most people die surrounded by people, and getting them to hospital is the weork of moments.

.

What a moral hazard

.

the only hazard "morally" is the one that allows people to die unnecessarily when they could be saved, this plan would go a long way to, if not save them all, at least have a chance of being saved.

letting people die without trying to save them is morally reprehensible.

trying to save them isn't.

it's the core principle of the hippocratic oath.

.

to the NWO that would slippery slope into.

.

the NWO exists only in the minds of those suffering from paranoid delusions.

unless you have proof of it's existence?

and by "proof" i mean real, solid evidence, that can be seen & touched & examined of a secret cabal of people running the planet, not merely conjecture or hearsay or speculation or conspiracy theories.

.

How about we make it mandatory worldwide for people to give up their estates and their life savings then?

.

we do.

it's called dying intestate.

.

So people in desperate need of whatever can get the help they need?

.

when someone dies in a state of intestacy, and they have no close living relative, the estate reverts to the crown/state, and under bona vacantia law it is divided up as necessary, with charities sometimes being the beneficiaries, so in a way, people do benefit from the mandatory taking of estates.

.

Why stop at just human organs?

.

because that was my point in question Yam, nothing more, and the point in question of the thread.

.

Because Israel did it?

.

no. "israel" didn't do it.

if you could see past your anti-semitism for a moment, and try to use a touch of objectivity, you'd see that just because the doctor was jewish, doesn't mean that "israel" did it, it means that HE did it, not a nation state.

and did what exactly?

the article quite clearly states that all organs were in fact given voluntarily, whether for financial gain or altruism is irrelevant, the fact remains that the organs were consentually given, and not stolen, and as far as i'm aware, there's no law forbidding the giving away of your own property.

Edited by shrooma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's the easiest thing in the world to "enforce" Yam.

most people, when they die, do so in hospital, or an ambulance, or in a situation where they can be taken to a hospital quickly, to remove the organs where they're still viable.

very few people die in the middle of nowhere, eaten by tigers, or are killed & dumped, and not found until they've rotted, most people die surrounded by people, and getting them to hospital is the weork of moments.

I didn't ask who or when is going to cut the bodies up. That has nothing to do with enforcement of a worldwide mandate. Hospitals aren't authority figures, they're doctors, nurses and staff to run the medical facilities. Who is going to enforce the mandatory global gutting of peoples' bodies? Who's going to pay for this? Hospitals are among the most bankrupted and subsidy-reliant organizations on the planet right now. Who's going to pay to house the millions of organs being collected every day and where are they going to be housed? Who's going to set the global rules in how over 100 countries are going to administer this? This is logistically unprecedented and you've left every conceivable question unanswered for.

when someone dies in a state of intestacy, and they have no close living relative, the estate reverts to the crown/state, and under bona vacantia law it is divided up as necessary, with charities sometimes being the beneficiaries, so in a way, people do benefit from the mandatory taking of estates.

Of course people benefit from the mandatory taking of estates that's why I asked. How are you going to enforce that? Who's going to pay for the global acquisition of life savings and estates? Some people warn of the NWO and it seems silly at a glance but when we've got people as ready to embrace the globalism as you, these warnings start to make some sense.

.the only hazard "morally" is the one that allows people to die unnecessarily when they could be saved, this plan would go a long way to, if not save them all, at least have a chance of being saved.

letting people die without trying to save them is morally reprehensible.

The only moral hazard that you can think of Yes, that would be reprehensible and when you ignore the money necessary to pay for these globalist ideas of yours it's easy to think that everyone's going to behave just right.

the NWO exists only in the minds of those suffering from paranoid delusions.

unless you have proof of it's existence?

and by "proof" i mean real, solid evidence, that can be seen & touched & examined of a secret cabal of people running the planet, not merely conjecture or hearsay or speculation or conspiracy theories.

The "NWO" doesn't exist in any formal capacity. That hopefully won't change 50 or 250 years from now. For now what smacks of the NWO to me are globalists who have no problem surrendering their estates, their relatives organs, whatever God knows who wants to some non-existent global authority to do with whatever they want. You can't even administer your own ideas without an NWO because you can't mandate people to do things without force control. Mandates require enforcement and you don't have a real answer for any mechanism of enforcement of this mandate.

because that was my point in question Yam, nothing more, and the point in question of the thread.

Yes and that's why I asked you why stop there? As it turns out, you don't stop there. At this point, where do you stop?

no. "israel" didn't do it.

Yes Israel is doing it. Organs trafficking has been ongoing in Israel for many years before they even addressed it legally, and it continues to this day as we see in articles like this one.

http://en.wikipedia....gan_trafficking

if you could see past your anti-semitism for a moment,and try to use a touch of objectivity, you'd see that just because the doctor was jewish, doesn't mean that "israel" did it, it means that HE did it, not a nation state.

and did what exactly?

the article quite clearly states that all organs were in fact given voluntarily, whether for financial gain or altruism is irrelevant, the fact remains that the organs were consentually given, and not stolen, and as far as i'm aware, there's no law forbidding the giving away of your own property.

After dropping this load off on the board, you're antisemitic too so we're even on the accusation/insult exchange. I know, everyone who has something negative to say about Israel is antisemitic to you, but someone who defends the oppression of Semites is also antisemitic. I didn't say they weren't voluntary, I said that exchanges to Palestinians are voluntary too. If that's what makes the color of right, then let's have a single standard here good enough for both.

Putting words in quotes like "enforce" means you don't think that mandatory global laws need enforcement mechanisms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't ask who or when is going to cut the bodies up. That has nothing to do with enforcement of a worldwide mandate.

.

nobody would "enforce" such a mandate.

hospitals worldwide have systems set up to match organs with recipients.

to match donor organs with recipients in other countries already happens, doctors don't recognise borders where the saving of lives is concerned, and a world-wide 'opt-out' scheme wouldn't need "enforcement", it would be a natural extension of the system already in place, albeit on a larger scale. policing wouldn't be necessary, as is the case now, except to prevent abuses, but if the organs were readily available, in large quantities, this would exponentially reduce reasons for abuse by its very nature.

.

Hospitals aren't authority figures, they're doctors, nurses and staff to run the medical facilities. Who is going to enforce the mandatory global gutting of peoples' bodies?

.

you seem to misunderstand the term "enforce".

no-one "enforces" the removal of organs for donation at present, it is done as a matter of course in all hospitals worldwide, it's policy, and needs no "enforcement.

.

Who's going to pay for this?

.

who pays for it now?

are you saying donor organs AREN'T removed until someone signs a cheque?

.

Hospitals are among the most bankrupted and subsidy-reliant organizations on the planet right now.

.

that's due to the way Govts. allocate funding, and is not the issue here.

.

Who's going to pay to house the millions of organs being collected every day and where are they going to be housed?

.

why would people pay?

there are thousands of facilities worldwide already in place to house organs waiting to be assigned, and most of them are empty, due to a global shortage of donors & organs, filling them up would cost nothing.

.

Who's going to set the global rules in how over 100 countries are going to administer this?

.

have you heard of such things as medical councils? the WHO?

.

This is logistically unprecedented

.

they said that about the worldwide vaccination programme to eradicate smallpox, which seemed to have been successful, despite the naysayers.

.

and you've left every conceivable question unanswered for.

.

i believe i've answered every question you've presented.

i couldn't answer them until you'd asked them, that's how our 'cause & effect' universe works Yam, so your statement makes no sense.

.

Of course people benefit from the mandatory taking of estates that's why I asked.

.

that isn't why you asked at all. you asked to try being facetious, which doesn't work on me.

.

How are you going to enforce that?

.

enforce what?

Who's going to pay for the global acquisition of life savings and estates?

.

who mentioned anything about the global acquisition of life savings & estates? i certainly didn't, and if that's what you meant in your previous post, then you're either being remarkably facetious, or remarkably unreasonable.

there should, and would, never be a global system for that kind of acquisition, that facility already exists in each persons respective country's, and that is the best possible system that could be, suggesting a global system for the same thing is ludicrous.

.

Some people warn of the NWO

.

from beneath their tin-foil hats.....

.

and it seems silly at a glance

.

remarkably.

.

but when we've got people as ready to embrace the globalism as you,

.

in the case of making organs for donation readily available to people worldwide?

you bet i'm for it. i can see the sense in the idea, even if you can't.

.

(out of space- Cont. in next post.)

The only moral hazard that you can think of Yes, that would be reprehensible and when you ignore the money necessary to pay for these globalist ideas of yours it's easy to think that everyone's going to behave just right.

The "NWO" doesn't exist in any formal capacity. That hopefully won't change 50 or 250 years from now. For now what smacks of the NWO to me are globalists who have no problem surrendering their estates, their relatives organs, whatever God knows who wants to some non-existent global authority to do with whatever they want. You can't even administer your own ideas without an NWO because you can't mandate people to do things without force control. Mandates require enforcement and you don't have a real answer for any mechanism of enforcement of this mandate.

Yes and that's why I asked you why stop there? As it turns out, you don't stop there. At this point, where do you stop?

Yes Israel is doing it. Organs trafficking has been ongoing in Israel for many years before they even addressed it legally, and it continues to this day as we see in articles like this one.

http://en.wikipedia....gan_trafficking

After dropping this load off on the board, you're antisemitic too so we're even on the accusation/insult exchange. I know, everyone who has something negative to say about Israel is antisemitic to you, but someone who defends the oppression of Semites is also antisemitic. I didn't say they weren't voluntary, I said that exchanges to Palestinians are voluntary too. If that's what makes the color of right, then let's have a single standard here good enough for both.

Putting words in quotes like "enforce" means you don't think that mandatory global laws need enforcement mechanisms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people warn of the NWO and it seems silly at a glance but when we've got people as ready to embrace the globalism as you, these warnings start to make some sense.

.

to people wearing tin-foil hats.

.

The only moral hazard that you can think of

.

can you think of another?

.

Yes, that would be reprehensible

.

agreed.

.

and when you ignore the money necessary to pay for these globalist ideas of yours

.

again, the question of money.

Yam, the removal of organs is already happening, everywhere, does it cost you money?

you seem to think that having a global system in place instead of a localised one will bankrupt the world, and that's silly.

.

it's easy to think that everyone's going to behave just right.

.

only fool would think that way.

but it would be a matter of supply & demand, when their is no shortage of something, theft becomes pointless.

you wouldn't try stealing air, would you?

.

The "NWO" doesn't exist in any formal capacity.

.

but you seem to think that a global 'opt-out' scheme for organ donorship would lead to one.

why?

.

That hopefully won't change 50 or 250 years from now.

.

when we all learn to live together as a planet, as a species, then something like a global council, a UN 2.0, will happen, but it won't be nefarious.

.

For now what smacks of the NWO to me are globalists who have no problem surrendering their estates,

.

which you suggested, no-one else.

.

their relatives organs,

.

so you're not an organ donor i take it? and you would object to anyone in your family who is?

.

whatever God knows

.

you're making ridiculous statements here Yam, to try & prove your point.

hyperbole won't work on me either.

.

who wants to some non-existent global authority to do with whatever they want.

.

you aren't making any sense.

you're the one concerned about a NWO, not me, i just think it would make sense if everyone in the world was an organ donor, no need to evoke paranoid ramblings of shadowy organisations.

.

You can't even administer your own ideas without an NWO

.

yes you can Yam, quite easily.

the system is in place already, on a localised level, Majestic 12 needn't get involved.

.

because you can't mandate people to do things without force control.

.

preposterous.

this isn't an orwellian world we live in, this is planet earth.

.

Mandates require enforcement and you don't have a real answer

.

that's because you hadn't asked the question.

i'm not a telepath.

but now you HAVE asked, you'll find my answer above.

.

for any mechanism of enforcement of this mandate.

.

which doesn't need enforcement.

it doesn't now on a local level, and wouldn't on a larger scale.

.

Yes and that's why I asked you why stop there?

.

dunno,.too much caffeine perhaps?

.

As it turns out, you don't stop there.

?

.

At this point, where do you stop?

??

.

Yes Israel is doing it.

.

not as much as the chinese, which you never mention.

.

Organs trafficking has been ongoing in Israel for many years before they even addressed it legally, and it continues to this day

.

as it does all over the world, but you only choose to highlight israel.

why?

.

After dropping this load off on the board, you're antisemitic too

.

and your reason for this observation is...?

.

i have never once made a comment on any thread regarding israel, much less condemn them, so i'd ask you to justify your above statement if you would.

.

so we're even on the accusation/insult exchange.

.

nope, you're one ahead on that score.

you called me anti-semitic with no justification whatsoever, yet your anti-zionist views are there for all to see.

.

I know, everyone who has something negative to say about Israel is antisemitic to you,

.

no, they're not. some of them make very valid points, but you go out of your way to labour the point to where it becomes anti-semitic, there's a difference.

.

but someone who defends the oppression of Semites is also antisemitic.

.

that makes no sense whatsoever.

.

I didn't say they weren't voluntary, I said that exchanges to Palestinians are voluntary too.

.

your point being...?

.

If that's what makes the color of right, then let's have a single standard here good enough for both.

.

which is what a world-wide scheme would do, but you decry it?

.

Putting words in quotes like "enforce" means you don't think that mandatory global laws need enforcement mechanisms.

.

some do- some don't-

see above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to people wearing tin-foil hats.

To you. Your childish trust in world government puts the hat on your own head.

can you think of another?

Dissent, violence, police states, terrorism, fraud, instability, revolution. Your global mandate of worldwide theft unless someone signs some list managed by God knows who doesn't stand a chance of being implemented. There's no authority to administer and enforce it.

the removal of organs is already happening, everywhere, does it cost you money?

Of course it does. Everything costs money and the scheme you're suggesting is the biggest sham of other peoples' money I've ever heard of. You're just spreading the shame from Israel to the rest of the world with this globalism. Nothing is "free". Nothing.

but you seem to think that a global 'opt-out' scheme for organ donorship would lead to one.

why?

No, because a global mandate would require one. What global authority can force people to do this? There is none in existence that can float your socialistic idealism.

when we all learn to live together as a planet, as a species, then something like a global council, a UN 2.0, will happen, but it won't be nefarious.

Yes and long before your magic rainbow world is created, medical science will be growing human organs in a jar so it'll never happen. You're just blowing sunshine up our butts with no plan for executing it.

which you suggested, no-one else.

I asked about it and you endorsed it. If you call that a suggestion think again. I wouldn't suggest your globalism to anyone interested in individual rights and independent sovereignty.

so you're not an organ donor i take it? and you would object to anyone in your family who is?

It's an individual decision, it's not a central government's decision and it sure as hell isn't a global government decision. Your trust in unknown future bureaucrats and halls of power is blind.

you're making ridiculous statements here Yam, to try & prove your point.

hyperbole won't work on me either.

It's not hyperbole. You don't have a name or a clue who's going to administer this insanity and how. UN 2.0? Doesn't exist. When it does, you can begin to start telling me why I should trust such an organization to mandate human dissection. Stop chopping my replies up into sentence fragments and learn how to reply with more than one quote box.

you aren't making any sense.

you're the one concerned about a NWO, not me, i just think it would make sense if everyone in the world was an organ donor, no need to evoke paranoid ramblings of shadowy organisations.

I'm not concerned about the NWO. I'm concerned about globalist minds like yours with infinite trust in powers you can't even begin to identify. Your rose colored world doesn't exist. It's naivety par excellence to deny that power corrupts like you're doing.

preposterous.

this isn't an orwellian world we live in, this is planet earth.

.

Mandate requires force. The essence of all government is force. What planet do you live on? You're smacking of utopian socialism which doesn't exist, never existed and never will.

not as much as the chinese, which you never mention.

Okay so Israel does it now. I accept your retraction. What I "never" do, you don't have a clue.

as it does all over the world, but you only choose to highlight israel.

why?

Because that is the topic of this discussion. If you want to start a new thread and invite me to participate in it about some other country doing this shameful crap, I will weigh in. Send me the invite and I'll be there.

you called me anti-semitic with no justification whatsoever, yet your anti-zionist views are there for all to see.

Of course I'm anti-Zionist. If you're not, then your antisemitic. Zionist policies oppress Semites. Very simple.

no, they're not. some of them make very valid points, but you go out of your way to labour the point to where it becomes anti-semitic, there's a difference.

Whatever that is. You can't find a single post from me that's antisemitic.

which is what a world-wide scheme would do, but you decry it?

I decry worldwide schemes because they require the centralization of power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Papering over that proven fact with whatever globalist rhetoric you want isn't going to change what history has proven for thousands of years. I'm decrying your globalism because it's sheer moral hazard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your childish

.

childish? i'm not the one who's overly paranoid & fearful here Yam, that'd be you.

.

trust in world government puts the hat on your own head.

.

how many protest marches & rallys against the Govt. do you attend?

how many benefit gigs & festivals have you ever organised to help fund anti-govt. activities hmm?

i'd be a pretty s**t Anarchist if i "childishly" trusted the Govt.

.

Dissent, violence, police states, terrorism, fraud, instability, revolution.

.

that's your answer is it? i said that letting people die without trying to save them is morally wrong. you said 'that's one way you see it'. i said can you see another way?

and you come out with some insane, paranoid ramblings about how the world's turning into a fascist police state?!

you need to put the crack-pipe down or something man, you're breaking up.

.

Your global mandate of worldwide theft

.

do you always consider donations 'theft' then Yam?

how very charitable & public spirited towards your fellow man you are. there mustn't be a hungry bum within a mile of your street come christmas time.....

.

unless someone signs some list managed by God knows who

.

and therein lies the rub. "god knows who"

with your total breakdown of trustin anyone & anything, i'm suprised you aren't having yourself followed in case you do something you don't like.

.

doesn't stand a chance of being implemented.

.

and you know this do you, nostradamus?

been a social logistician long then?

.

There's no authority to administer and enforce it.

.

which part of 'enforcement isn't necessary' are you having trouble understanding?

it's already happening. everywhere. without "enforcement". it just needs changing from a national, to a global scheme.

would you like me to speak slower?

.

Of course it does.

.

doctor's surgeries are full of people signing cheques to remove donor organs are they then Yam?

it costs money in the sense that doctors get paid a wage, they don't itemise everthing they do & bill the Govt. accordingly.

maybe i'm not talking slow enough....?

.

Everything costs money

.

air? birdsong? children's laughter? the scent of flowers on the breeze? rainbows?

maybe you're looking in all the wrong places Yam?

but with your totally negative worldview, that's hardly suprising.

.

and the scheme you're suggesting is the biggest sham of other peoples' money I've ever heard of.

.

that YOU'VE ever heard of, yes, but that's because you're hardly the most charitable soul, altruism personified, are you...?

and it wouldn't be "other people's money". unlike you, i have no fear of paying to save lives.

i pay £85 a week towards doctors & hospitals i never use, but SOMEBODY is using them, people who NEED them, and i wouldn't begrudge them that help for a second, with me not being a miserly curmudgeon.

.

You're just spreading the shame from Israel to the rest of the world with this globalism.

.

and that explains you to a tee.

hope you're proud of yourself.

.

Nothing is "free". Nothing.

.

*see above*

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no reason to globalize this issue anymore than there's an excuse to globalize any other. You've exposed yourself as a globalist. I'm not going to attack you for your opinions like you're attacking me. You debase yourself by assaulting me as a person. Three words for you to describe your rebuttals: Impotent ad hominem.

I'm an extremely charitable soul. Charity is giving freely. You don't need mandates for that. People already have the choice to donate organs. I don't think you know what mandatory means.

No, it doesn't need to change from a national charitable choice to a global mandate. If Israel needs organs, it can make organ donation mandatory in its own country and cut them out of their own citizens' bodies. Domestic demand would be satisfied by its own domestic supply many, many times over again. Until that time, it's illegal and any criminals trafficking human organs should be prosecuted and punished for their crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because a global mandate would require one. What global authority can force people to do this?

.

force?

maybe i should speak s-l-o-w-e-r.

which part of "opt-out" is confusing you? it's a simple enough concept Yam, surely even you can grasp it if you try....

.

There is none in existence that can float your socialistic idealism.

.

given a choice between socialistic idealism, and raging paranoid fascism, i know which one i'd choose.

.

Yes and long before your magic rainbow world is created, medical science will be growing human organs in a jar so it'll never happen.

.

that technology won't be implimented for at least 100yrs, organ donorship has already been used for 50yrs, try & be a bit more rational with your responses.

i know that might be a tall order for you, rationalism, but give it a try, you might like it....?

.

You're just blowing sunshine up our butts with no plan for executing it.

.

that's because i'm not a social logistician, but there are plenty of people who are, i'm just someone who'd rather not let people die when there's a chance they can be saved.

that'll be that rationalism thing again....

.

If you call that a suggestion think again.

.

i think all the time Yam, all day if neeeds be.

maybe you should try it sometimes?

it's not difficult.

.

I wouldn't suggest your globalism to anyone interested in individual rights and independent sovereignty.

.

that's because you don't seem to understand the issue, your rampant paranoia is preventing you.

.

It's an individual decision, it's not a central government's decision and it sure as hell isn't a global government decision.

.

again, which part of "being able to opt out" or "organ donorship has been a reality for half a century" is giving you problems??

people in your world *shudder* may have a gun to their heads all the time, but up here on planet earth, we have a thing called 'freedom of choice', do you need that explaining too?

.

Your trust in unknown future bureaucrats and halls of power is blind.

.

"unknown future bureaucrats"??

now you're just being silly.

and paranoid.

again.

.

It's not hyperbole.

.

yes, it is.

.

You don't have a name or a clue who's going to administer this insanity and how.

.

that's because i'm not a social logistician, as you keep forcing me to repeat.

maybe if i say it over & over again enough times, it might start to sink in?

but i doubt it.

.

UN 2.0? Doesn't exist.

.

didn't say it did.

i said it probably will in the future, when we learn to put our differences aside.

i know that would be anathemic to you, but it's something that us with at least a shred of rationality look forward to.

.

When it does, you can begin to start telling me why I should trust such an organization to mandate human dissection.

.

*sigh*

do you trust the organisations who've been doing the very same FOR THE LAST FIFTY YEARS?

talking slowly doesn't seem to be working, so i thought i'd try shouting.

.

Stop chopping my replies up into sentence fragments

.

no.

.

learn how to reply with more than one quote box.

.

impossible on my phone.

.

I'm not concerned about the NWO.

.

oh, but you are Yam.

overly concerned in fact.

.

I'm concerned about globalist minds like yours

.

as opposed to insecure, untrusting ones like yours?

.

with infinite trust in powers

.

again, hyperbole.

.

you can't even begin to identify.

.

because they don't exist.

.

Your rose colored world doesn't exist.

.

and people like you will try their damnedest to make sure it never will.

.

It's naivety par excellence to deny that power corrupts like you're doing.

.

and it's even more naive of you to believe that's what i was suggesting.

.

Mandate requires force.

.

no. it doesn't.

.

The essence of all government is force.

.

no. it isn't.

except to the truly paranoid & untrusting.

.

What planet do you live on?

.

earth.

thankfully not the same planet as you.

.

You're smacking of utopian socialism which doesn't exist, never existed and never will.

.

oh, how your faith in humanity is a shining beacon to us all Yam.

.

Of course I'm anti-Zionist. If you're not, then your antisemitic. Zionist policies oppress Semites. Very simple.

.

Zionism- a movement started in the 19th century to combat growing anti-semitism.

Antisemitism- an irrational hatred of jews.

explain to me how your above statement makes even a modicum of sense?

but at least you're consistant Yam, as pretty much everything you've said doesn't make sense.

.

I decry worldwide schemes because they require the centralization of power.

.

and not because you're paranoid & afraid then?

.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

.

plagarism Yam?

that's weak, even for you.

.

Papering over that proven fact with whatever globalist rhetoric you want isn't going to change what history has proven for thousands of years.

.

please, show me one example "from history" over "thousands of years", where someone has wielded "absolute power".

even god, who is the only (alleged) being to have "absolute power" only used it once, to bring about an (alleged) all-consuming deluge.

again, hyperbole doesn't work on me, it's far too easy to see through.

.

I'm decrying your globalism because it's sheer moral hazard.

.

in the eyes of the paranoid, maybe, but please explain to me how saving lives by implimenting a world-wide donor programme would be a "moral hazard"?

and speak as fast as you like Yam, i aren't the one who's terminally hard of understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i aren't the one who's terminally hard of understanding.

You isn't? ;)

please explain to me how saving lives by implimenting a world-wide donor programme would be a "moral hazard"?

I already did. Power corrupts and absolute power (global power) corrupts absolutely (globally).

Government can't do anything without money. Sorry bud, but even your ideas of global governance aren't immune to that requirement.

Everyone should share everything and this wouldn't happen. I can use that rhetorical dodge to excuse the crime on every topic of discussion involving fraud or theft that there is. The only other thing you've contributed here besides that all purpose cop-out is ad-hominem directed at me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no reason to globalize this issue anymore than there's an excuse to globalize any other.

.

the saving of lives is a global issue Yam, why do you think Govts. give billions each year to the starving people of the world.

a global organ donation scheme would be a natural extension of that.

.

You've exposed yourself as a globalist.

.

"exposed"?

you say 'globalist' to rhyme with 'scum'.

i'd rather see the bigger global picture than be insular.

.

I'm not going to attack you for your opinions

.

bit late for that sentiment Yam, you started when you typed the word "childish".

.

like you're attacking me.

.

in retaliation.

.

You debase yourself by assaulting me as a person.

.

but yet you're morally praiseworthy when you do it to others?

can you spell 'hypocrisy' Yam?

.

Three words for you to describe your rebuttals: Impotent ad hominem.

.

the fact you can't counter my rebuttals coherently, with a well-founded argument based on fact would prove otherwise.

.

I'm an extremely charitable soul.

.

as your rampant anti-zionism proves.

.

Charity is giving freely.

.

that isn't in dispute. that's why organ donors are called 'donors', not 'theft victims'

.

You don't need mandates for that. People already have the choice to donate organs.

.

but yet you seem to think that linking these schemes together to provide a worldwide database of organs & recipients is the work of satan or somesuch?

why?

afraid you'll go into hospital and come out with a jewish heart....?

.

I don't think you know what mandatory means.

.

yes. i do.

it means 'not having any way to opt-out'

when i made it quite clear from the first sentence onwards that opting out was an.., well..., option.

it's you that didn't seem to grasp that concept Yam, with your talk about 'gutting corpses' 'mandatory dissection' 'theft' and such.

.

No, it doesn't need to change from a national charitable choice to a global mandate.

.

why not? billions of people around the world have neither signed a donor card, nor carry one, making organ donorship mandatory, UNLESS YOU OPT OUT, would mean thatdoubt would be removed, and more lives would be saved.

.

If Israel needs organs, it can make organ donation mandatory in its own country and cut them out of their own citizens' bodies.

.

they do Yam, but their isn't enough.

if you could see past your (distinctly uncharitable) blind hate of the israelis, you'd be able to see that my idea is a good solution.

i'm sure that if the state of israel didn't exist, you'd be all for it, but your prejudices are making you lose your objectivity, and that's ALWAYS a bad thing.

.

Domestic demand would be satisfied by its own domestic supply many, many times over again.

.

there is a massive, worldwide shortage of organs available for transplant. thousands of children die each day because there simply aren't any organs for them. to imply that there is a glut, that there are "many, many times" more organs than needed is at best, ill-informed, and contemptable at worst.

why do you think that a worldwide black market exists for trafficking organs? because hospitals are awash with them?

please.

.

Until that time, it's illegal and any criminals trafficking human organs should be prosecuted and punished for their crimes.

.

that's the point of this thread, they WEREN'T criminals, they were doctors, and the organs WEREN'T stolen, they were given voluntarily, but because the doctors were from israel, and the organs were being given to jews, you stated foaming at the mouth.

that's racism whichever way you look at it.

hardly the most charitable of notions from a self-confessed "charitable person".

hypocrisy is a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You isn't? ;)

I already did. Power corrupts and absolute power (global power) corrupts absolutely (globally).

.

no-one has "global power" Yam, not even the UN, who's about the closest thing we have to it, but the term "toothless tiger" has been applied to them so much it's lost its meaning.

.

Government can't do anything without money. Sorry bud, but even your ideas of global governance aren't immune to that requirement.

.

why do you keep on insisting i'm making claims advocating a world government?!

in what way, shape, or form, could a world-wide database of organs & recipients take over the world??

we wouldn't be using SkyNet to hold the information!

.

Everyone should share everything and this wouldn't happen.

.

i didn't ask it to, just that everyone be an automatic donor unless they declare they're not instead of the other way round.

our country has had this scheme in place for years, and it works perfectly well, gun to the head not necessary.

.

I can use that rhetorical dodge to excuse the crime on every topic of discussion involving fraud or theft that there is.

.

it's not a rhetorical dodge, you just fail to understand it and twist my intention to fit your viewpoint.

at least i'm debating properly, showing you the flaws in your argument and using them against you, you're just making stuff up.

.

The only other thing you've contributed here besides that all purpose cop-out

.

*sigh*

.

is ad-hominem directed at me.

.

and why would i do that Yam?

why, when i'm known for my humour, would i suddenly start attacking you?

answer is, i wouldn't, except in retaliation.

or maybe i just don't like racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no-one has "global power" Yam, not even the UN, who's about the closest thing we have to it, but the term "toothless tiger" has been applied to them so much it's lost its meaning.

And yet you used the UN as the example to explain how to administer your idea.

why do you keep on insisting i'm making claims advocating a world government?!

Because you're mandating something to be done worldwide. You can't do that unless you have world government.

in what way, shape, or form, could a world-wide database of organs & recipients take over the world??

Exactly. What does that mean? I'm saying that in administering your globalist world of shiny happy people holding hands, there is too much room for fraud, corruption, abuse, conflict, violence, wrongful death, malpractice, terrorism, and all manner of moral hazards. Having some international bureaucracy like the UN 2.0 enforcing the mandate of taking someone's organs out who didn't have the choice for a million different reasons not to opt-out is naive

i didn't ask it to, just that everyone be an automatic donor unless they declare they're not instead of the other way round.

our country has had this scheme in place for years, and it works perfectly well, gun to the head not necessary.

Maybe it would work for the countries like Israel who are notorious organ traffickers. And maybe you should lead by example and export your surplus organs to the UN and show them what a great idea it is. I'll keep my mandates on the most localized level possible thanks. Voluntarily dealing with a doctor who's providing this kind of treatment at the expense of the center he works for is one thing. Having unschooled bureaucrats from who knows where running it is a hazardous idea.

why, when i'm known for my humour, would i suddenly start attacking you?

answer is, i wouldn't, except in retaliation.

or maybe i just don't like racism.

Retaliation for what? I don't believe I've ever said a word to you before this, before you started acting like you know me. I'm Yamato. Pleased to meet you. And the last thing I am is antisemitic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.