Where’s all the plants?

“All lives are equal but some lives are more equal than others.”

I love this article.

The first time I read it I felt like someone finally understood.

This is the tricky nature of “value”, isn’t it?

Something can be both valuable and detrimental to humanity.

Sure, let’s discuss the nature of want, then, if that’s your chosen distraction.

And no, I don’t have any self respect. I will wank all day long. Self respect is for people who take themselves far too seriously. I only mention your intellectual status due to the fact that you seem to take yourself very seriously.

Why wait for later? I’ve asked plenty of questions in just my previous comment that we can discuss. Once you’ve proven that you engage in good faith, logical discourse I’ll be happy to talk to you for as long as you’d like about whatever topics.

Speaking of which, you never answered my question about whether you’ve ever been wrong about anything! I’m still waiting to hear from you on that one! The most intelligent people I’ve met in my life always seem to be the most capable of admitting that they don’t know nearly as much as they wish that they did.

I’m not interested in discussing the concept of justice with you. You argue in bad faith, as though you’re playing a zero-sum sports game and are willing to cheat to “win”.

What relevance does that have to the fact that your premise is logically flawed? You’ve latched on to some perceived “gotcha”, which is wholly unbecoming of an intellectual such as yourself.

The difference between an acceptable want and a want in a controlled population is a red herring that you’ve latched onto and extrapolated on in your own mind. Not only that, but your fixation on that quote represents a clear misunderstanding of my ontological intent.

Answering this desperate question of yours has zero relevance to the fact that your statement “The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else.” is logically flawed via the fallacy of consent. Unless, that is, you can prove otherwise?

Well it sounds like you’ve read into my comments far beyond my meaning, then.

As to how I refuse to apply “oppressor” to the hawk… I can see why you would advance that idea, but the definition of oppression defies it, by my view:

verb: oppress

• keep (someone) in subservience and hardship, especially by the unjust exercise of authority.

*edited to fix a copy/paste mistake (consent should have been oppress in the definition)

You have repeatedly failed to address your own inconsistencies, and have ignored direct questions such as:

“As to your second question, I’m afraid I’ll need for you to give me an example of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors before I can answer that with any candor.”

When pressed too much on any of your inconsistencies, you latch onto something else and attempt to shift the discussion. Your statement, “The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else.” remains logically flawed despite these contortions.

I fail to see how my position lacks consistency. If you can more clearly explain how I’ve been inconsistent, I’d be happy to address that. I disagree with your assertion that the rodent is being “oppressed” by the hawk, and you have not provided sufficient reasoning for why I “must accept” that position, upon which your “logical chain of meaning”, such as it was, is based on you putting words into my mouth and then dictating what I believe. This is yet another fallacy (strawman fallacy).

I do have a question for you that’s somewhat off topic. Have you ever been wrong about anything? I am and have been wrong a lot in my life, and I’ve found it’s much easier to reconcile and manage my state of mind when I acknowledge that I am not infallible in my thought or belief.

noun: consent; plural noun: consents

• compliance in or approval of what is done or proposed by another

noun: agency; plural noun: agencies

• the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power

Sure. A rodent that runs from or struggles against the talons of a hawk is demonstrating non-consent to the idea of being predated or consumed. It does not consent to this arrangement, and thus it resists, however futile such resistance might prove to be.

As to your second question, I’m afraid I’ll need for you to give me an example of something independent of biological, societal or cultural factors before I can answer that with any candor.

An understanding of consent is important to the topic at hand, certainly, but your reply does not address the fallacy of consent, nor does it demonstrate a particularly strong grasp on the root concept of consent. Consent exists whether or not you believe in it. Much like the sun.

Ignoring the fact that society’s builders, such as you describe them, constructed society a priori, you’re falling prey to the fallacy of consent.

At every point people can always want whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean it can come to pass as it may not be in the realm of possibility. I could want to go to the moon right this minute but it obviously isn’t going to happen. A person about to die in a prison cell may want to get out but that’s probably not going to happen. They are free to want it and by that, they necessarily also want to suffer from the perceived lack of freedom. Or, they can want what is in the realm of possibility, and have their wants met. Prison or the mundane existence of earth’s gravity, you have the option of wanting what is possible or what isn’t possible. Wanting the suffering of the lack, or enjoying what is given. But neither I nor anyone else can make someone want what they don’t. I can just point out that there are options and it’s on the individual then to then weigh if the options are truly in the realm of possibility for them - I can’t make that choice for them either.

So you agree, then, that your sentence “The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else.” is logically flawed?

You can’t resist a system and simultaneously demand the right to enjoy the fruits of that system.

I’m not sure how this point has any relevance to this discussion. No one brought up demands.

Is there any point by your view, excepting death, at which you believe a person is no longer able to exercise their wants?

The notion of want is not applicable to a controlled population.

A cow, for example, may want to avoid its trip to the abattoir, but conditions have been created in which the cow’s wants are unattainable.

Your questions are valid but your first sentence is logically flawed, as written; It also presupposes that society was built as it is with intention, rather than shaped over time by an accumulation of processes, some of which included violent coercion.

It’s an industry with a long and storied history of corruption, and it’s foolish to believe that that’s magically stopped somehow. It continues to happen to this day.

You can peruse more cases by using your favorite search engine or ChatGPT to search “medical examiners found guilty of taking bribes”, or similar. The information on the cases is not always easy to turn up, and with ChatGPT in particular you need to be careful to verify the info, of course.

Some ChatGPT provided examples:

1. The Bronx Funeral Home Scandal (2015)

In 2015, several funeral directors and medical examiners in the Bronx were arrested and accused of participating in a bribery scheme. Funeral directors allegedly paid bribes to officials at the New York City Medical Examiner’s Office to steer bodies to their funeral homes. In exchange for the payments, the medical examiner’s office would facilitate the release of bodies before proper investigations were completed, often in violation of legal and ethical procedures. This scandal raised concerns about the integrity of the system for handling deceased individuals and led to multiple arrests and charges. 2. Detroit Medical Examiner Corruption (2016)

In 2016, a former assistant medical examiner in Detroit, Dr. L.J. Montague, was implicated in a bribery scheme involving the alteration of autopsy results. Dr. Montague had been involved in improperly handling body evidence and allegedly accepted bribes from funeral homes to provide favorable autopsy reports. In some cases, the reports were changed to cover up the real cause of death, potentially for financial gain or to protect individuals or institutions involved in the deaths. This case drew attention to issues of corruption within the Detroit Medical Examiner’s office. 3. The Pennsylvania “Body-Snatching” Scandal (2006)

In 2006, it was revealed that a Pennsylvania medical examiner, Dr. Cyril Wecht, had been under investigation for charges related to body snatching and bribery. Dr. Wecht, who was known for performing controversial autopsies, was accused of taking bribes and improperly storing bodies for the purpose of selling them for medical research. Wecht was accused of improperly obtaining and retaining bodies for personal gain, and of offering favorable autopsy reports in exchange for compensation. Although Wecht was ultimately acquitted of the charges, the case raised concerns about the potential for bribery and unethical behavior in medical examiner practices. 4. The “Plastic Coffin” Case in New York (2000s)

In the early 2000s, a New York medical examiner, Dr. Charles Hirsch, faced public scrutiny after it was revealed that his office was involved in a widespread bribery scheme linked to the sale of bodies for scientific research. Funeral directors were allegedly paying bribes to medical examiners in exchange for facilitating the release of bodies to be sold to research organizations or anatomical schools. The bodies were often not properly identified or studied for forensic purposes, leading to fears that the system was being exploited for profit. 5. The Georgia Medical Examiner Scandal (2017)

In 2017, Georgia’s former **State Medical Examiner, Dr. Kendrick Brown, faced allegations of corruption and unethical practices. Dr. Brown was suspected of accepting bribes from law enforcement officers and other figures involved in criminal cases, in exchange for altering the results of autopsies to influence investigations. While no formal charges were filed against Brown, the case raised serious questions about the role of medical examiners in criminal justice proceedings and highlighted potential vulnerabilities to corruption.

1. The Los Angeles County Medical Examiner Scandal (2014)

In 2014, Dr. Mark Fajardo, a prominent pathologist and deputy medical examiner at the Los Angeles County Department of Coroner, was implicated in a scandal where he allegedly falsified autopsy reports. Dr. Fajardo was accused of accepting bribes from a wealthy individual to alter the cause of death in the case of an overdose. The bribery was suspected to have been linked to an attempt to cover up a drug overdose death and turn it into an accident or natural causes, making it easier for the family to collect on insurance. Dr. Fajardo was eventually investigated, but the full scope of the bribery was never completely revealed in public records. 2. The “Foul Play” Investigation in Arkansas (2012)

In 2012, Dr. Ronda Roebuck, a pathologist who worked as a deputy medical examiner in Arkansas, was involved in a case where her autopsy report was allegedly tampered with. The case involved the suspicious death of a woman, which Dr. Roebuck initially ruled a suicide. However, after the deceased’s family raised concerns and a private investigator brought attention to the possible foul play, it was suggested that Roebuck had altered her findings. The family believed that the death was a homicide and that the changes to the autopsy report were made to avoid further legal complications or investigations. Dr. Roebuck later faced scrutiny for her handling of multiple death investigations, and the Arkansas Medical Examiner’s Office faced pressure to overhaul its practices. 3. Corruption and Body-Handling Scandal in Georgia (2017)

In 2017, allegations of corruption surfaced involving the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s Medical Examiner’s Office. Several medical examiners and other officials were suspected of receiving bribes from funeral homes or third-party organizations in exchange for allowing bodies to be released without proper investigation or certification. Funeral directors and medical institutions were believed to have offered financial incentives for the swift release of bodies, avoiding standard procedures such as autopsies in cases where foul play was suspected. This scandal highlighted gaps in accountability within state-run medical examiner systems and raised concerns about the potential for bribery and abuse. 4. The “Death Investigation” Corruption Case in Ohio (2015)

In 2015, it was reported that a Cuyahoga County, Ohio, medical examiner, Dr. Jan Gorniak, faced allegations of corruption and misconduct linked to her professional relationships with funeral homes. Several funeral directors were accused of paying bribes to medical examiner’s office staff to ensure that certain bodies were released without proper death investigations. The bribery was said to be financially motivated, with funeral homes attempting to quickly prepare bodies for burial without waiting for the completion of autopsy reports. Although investigations into the claims continued, Dr. Gorniak was forced to step down from her position as the head of the office amid mounting public pressure. 5. The “Body Broker” Scandal in Las Vegas (2009)

In 2009, Dr. Elizabeth K. Pavlik, a forensic pathologist working for the Clark County Coroner’s Office in Las Vegas, became the focus of a controversial case involving the illegal selling of bodies and body parts. Investigations revealed that several medical professionals, including Dr. Pavlik, had engaged in “body brokering” — the practice of selling body parts for profit. The scheme allegedly involved bribing medical examiners or coroners to release bodies to brokers, who would then illegally distribute body parts for research or commercial purposes. While Pavlik was not directly accused of taking bribes, the scandal brought national attention to potential corruption within the coroner’s office. She was investigated for unethical conduct, and the case shed light on the potential for fraud and bribery in medical examiner offices when financial incentives intersect with body handling. 6. The Alabama Medical Examiner’s Office Scandal (2011)

In Alabama, Dr. William A. “Bill” P. was suspected of taking bribes while working as a medical examiner in the early 2000s. Investigations into the office of the Montgomery County Medical Examiner found discrepancies in autopsy reports and irregularities in body handling. It was suspected that Dr. P. accepted bribes from various law enforcement officials and private individuals to alter cause-of-death reports in cases involving questionable deaths. There were even allegations that these altered reports were part of a larger conspiracy to cover up instances of police brutality. The case became a flashpoint for concerns over corruption in the state’s medical examiner system, but Dr. P. was never formally charged with bribery, though his actions raised serious ethical questions. 7. The “Organ Harvesting” Case in New York (2015)

A major corruption case involving a medical examiner in New York centered on illegal organ harvesting. In 2015, authorities uncovered a scheme where a medical examiner’s office worker in New York City was accused of taking bribes from an organ transplant ring. The worker allegedly provided access to bodies that were meant to be examined for forensic investigations, allowing the bodies to be sold for organ transplants. The medical examiner or coroner allegedly accepted bribes to help facilitate the sale of organs. The corruption was linked to a broader criminal syndicate involved in illegal organ trade and led to significant investigations into the role of medical professionals in such illegal practices. 8. The “Body Mishandling” Scandal in South Carolina (2004)

In South Carolina, Dr. Thomas O. Greene, a forensic pathologist, faced accusations of mishandling bodies and allegedly taking bribes from funeral home operators. The investigation started after a whistleblower reported that Dr. Greene had been

<character limit>