Comic Strips

12743 readers

3986 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
The comic must be a complete story.
If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
You may post comics from others or your own.
If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
Politeness.
Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.

Web of links

[email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
[email protected]: memes (you don't say!)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

lawrence

1922

Finally beat cancer (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/comicstrips

200 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why not contribute something yourself, or address the arguments they're making instead of dismissing them out of hand?

[–] xhieron 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The argument is bad and probably in bad faith. If I can paraphrase it in a few lines and demonstrate how ridiculous it is, it's not deserving of a response.

You don't have to attend every argument you're invited to.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why on earth do you think I'm arguing in bad faith? What do you think my real beliefs & agenda are? Do you know what arguing in bad faith means?

“Sorry about your cancer. We have to let you die so maybe cancer researchers will be motivated to try harder for a permanent cure.”

If the US poured it's full resources into saving John Doe from Birmingham Alabama, who has cancer, they could probably do it. Of course, then those resources (cash, equipment, researchers & doctors) couldn't be used to help other people, or to perform research towards an eventual cure for everybody. It would be a bad use of resources, right?

You don't let John Doe die because you want his death to motivate researchers. But you only have a certain amount of resources, and you have to allocate them in a way that makes sense, and pouring everything into a temporary solution that only affect this one dude (or one batch of student loan recipients) at the cost of a long-term, permanent solution to the root causes of the issue is just...a bad idea.

[–] xhieron 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why on earth do you think I’m arguing in bad faith? What do you think my real beliefs & agenda are?

I think your real beliefs and agenda are that you don't want student loan forgiveness for anyone, ever, under any circumstances. Maybe you're bitter because you didn't go to school or maybe because you did and already paid off your debt. Maybe you have a chip on your shoulder, or maybe you're just a troll. I don't really care. It doesn't matter, because the argument is reprehensible regardless of your motives:

We should let John Doe in Alabama die because it's too expensive to save him.

You decided that the financial expense of saving a life is worth condemning a patient to death just like you decided that the imaginary, hypothetical political cost of a change in policy is worth consigning multiple generations to lifelong debt.

You should be ashamed of yourself. But whether you are or not, I'm not interested in debating with you.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

Haha, that escalated quickly. "You don't want a one-time forgiveness of student loans for a particular batch of students which does nothing to solve the systemic issues leading to skyrocketing education costs? Clearly you just hate students and want to kill them and probably eat them!!&!&"

Let me guess: you have a student loan. Well, I'd be okay with forgiving it, after we take care of the core problems so we don't end up right back here again in 15-20 more years. And I'd be willing to bet than by that time, after your loan is forgiven and you start stacking cash, you'll suddenly see the big picture and be firmly on the other side of the issue. You don't strike me as a terribly warm and empathetic person.

You decided that the financial expense of saving a life is worth condemning a patient to death

Yes. And if you have $10 in your pocket, you prioritized your own well-being over people dying from hunger, war or disease. If you drive any car other than a Mercedes Benz C Class (apparently the safest car ATM) then you prioritized other factors (cost, style, whatever) over your own safety. Oh what, you "can't afford" a C Class? Don't tell me you're prioritizing other things (having a home bigger than the back seat of a Mercedes Benz C Class, eating good food, wearing something other than sack cloth) over your own safety? Statistically, you're condemning yourself to a shorter life expectancy by misallocating your resources!

But really, by your logic, what you should be doing is selling your house, your car, your shoes and whatever you typed this message on, and donating all the proceeds to the GoFundMe for John Doe in Birmingham Alabama, so I guess that's beside the point.

We live in a real world. Suggesting that we can never compromise our principles by allowing any person to die from a fatal disease is just ridiculously naive. And taking a stand on your silly and unrealistic principles to conceal the fact that you just really want a cash handout is sleezy as hell.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm not.

But whether you are or not, I’m not interested in debating with you.

Then you definitely don't have to reply.