On 13 December 2011 15:45, Kiran K Karthikeyan <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13 December 2011 11:57, Venky TV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'm a little confused. If the logic of giving people what they want >> to pay for is "grievously mistaken", I guess you are suggesting people >> should instead be given what they "need" (and I will not, at the >> moment, split hairs about who gets to define what this need is). > > Perhaps an allegory that Cheeni made and never took the idea to completion > should be used here. > > So a doctor is allowed to prescribe a pill which has better taste, but not > as effective compared to another because a patient doesn't like it? Perhaps, > if most patients vomit out the not so good tasting drug consistently after > taking it.
Bringing in the only point I was trying to make of people not wanting to pay for what *might* be good for them, I assume you expect doctors to chase down every body over 50 and give them colonoscopies for free, irrespective of whether the "patients" want the treatment or not? >> So, how is this going to be achieved? By -uh- censoring the ToI's of >> the world? > > -uh- Yes. The independence as well as the ethics and morals of journalism > should be constitutionally protected/enforced legally or through a > professional body. > > Does that clear up the confusion or were you confused about something else? Ah, so you protect the freedom of the press by censoring the newspapers you figure are bad for society. That *does* clear things up, yes. Venky (the Second).
