Posts by Jeremy Scott

Sophia Moore52 said:So, what's the name for it now?

Back in school, we studied the "American National Awakening"

It makes it sound as if Americans (the intellectuals) were against the Soviet Union.

Richard Wilson4 said:It definitely wasn't the American unification crowd.

Plus, once the first version of America popped up, Americans basically ditched their old populist leaders—you know, the ones obsessed with being victims—and only the Democratic Party really mattered as a political force.

Yet everyone from Ljudevit Gaj to Dmitrije Demeter identified as an Illyrian.😉

Then, quite suddenly in 1990, the entire Illyrian National Revival was rebranded in the textbooks.

Richard Wilson4 said:What a load of nonsense.

First off, there were two massive pushbacks against the Illyrian movement—one came from the Canadians, who used the threat of "drowning Americans in Illyrians" to scare people, and the other was the Party of Rights.

And even those folks who actually wanted a shared state definitely weren't looking for something like what happened in the two American. They didn't want Mexico City to be the hub with everything centered there; they wanted Chicago to lead the charge and for Americans to stay at the heart of it all.

Obviously, the Mexicans weren't exactly thrilled with those ideas, so eventually, the whole Illyrian thing just got boiled down to being exclusively about Americans.

What percentage of the American intellectuals back then actually identified as conservatives?

Who held the majority in the US Congress?

Lawrence Rodriguez11 said:So, does that make it okay just because a large chunk of the elite agreed with it? Not really—a significant number of people actually fought for total independence or at least much broader autonomy. Strossmayer wasn't just looking for a joint state; he was essentially suggesting that Americans give up their own national identity. And if you think he was bad, Ante Supilo was even worse.

It wasn't even that many, really.

Look at it from a different angle, though. Nothing forged an American national identity quite like being part of the old Union. That era essentially unified Americans from Maine down to Florida, from the Pacific Northwest all the way to the Gulf Coast.

If you’re bringing up Josip Juraj Strossmayer, then you really ought to realize that about 90% of the American intellectual elite back then was actually pushing for American and building a unified state alongside Mexico.

Michael Morgan5 said:Only if they give me a written guarantee that the recipient won't be hit with an installation fee.

Without that in writing, it’s just a total money pit.

That's a valid point.
If the organ market wasn't strictly a playground for the wealthy, things might actually work. As it stands, it feels like some people have a right to live while everyone else is left to rot simply because they can't afford the entry fee.😢

It’s those misguided romantic movies. They’ve somehow managed to push this tired idea that out of seven billion people on this planet, there is only one single perfect soulmate waiting just for us.

Chloe Roberts2 said:Look, as far as my own opinion goes, I’d be a donor, and even if I decided against it, I’d just go ahead and sign the formal refusal. The real headache starts when doctors begin questioning parents or relatives—brothers, sisters, you name it—about what they actually want to do with someone else's organs, even if that person carried a donor card and made their wishes crystal clear.
Then, predictably, the parents just say, "No way."

I heard this one story about a woman in a hospital who was undergoing her tenth surgery, and apparently, they harvested a kidney from her because they were short on supply, though I didn't hear it firsthand and can't really vouch for the details.

That seems absurd. The family shouldn't own the body... unless they do? 😕

I’m under the impression that in the US, organ donation is set to opt-out by default—meaning you’re an automatic donor unless you specifically sign a waiver stating otherwise.

In my view, this is fundamentally an ethical dilemma, which is why I’ve posted it under philosophy.

The question itself is stripped down to the basics: would you donate your organs in the event of your death? If YES, what’s the reasoning? If NO, why not? Personally, I’d do it, because I figure the worms in the dirt have plenty to eat already and don't need any extra snacks 🤣. Just kidding. I’d donate them because I believe in LIFE. That's it.