It's not malpractice, it's the Blue Screen of Death
Mull over the current national climate—particularly how money is spent and the value placed on human life, plus the blind faith in "innovation" and "tech" as our latter-day Messiahs—and then ask yourself if you want, for example, to be cared for by a robot in your dotage:
"The more pressing and serious problem is the extent to which society is prepared to trust autonomous robots and entrust others into the care of autonomous robots."
Caring for an ageing population also raised questions, he said.
Robots were already being used in countries like Japan to take simple measurements, such as heart rate, from elderly patients.
Professor Sharkey, who worked in geriatric nursing in his youth, said he could envisage a future when it was "much cheaper to dump a lot of old people" in a large hospital, where they could be cared for by machines.
Not to mention:who would be liable for autonomous machines screwing people up?
The article's other bits, hinting but not discussing mechanized killing and remote-control worker oppression, aren't tasty pieces of cake to think about, either. But imagine how the Wall Street Journal, say (and most of its readers), would find all of these things Just Incredibly Peachy. They're such obvious boons to bottom lines. Eek, I say.
Attention Catholics: Limbo not really there after all!
Hmm... if the Church has been perhaps wrong about their own afterlife for all these years, then gosh, what else might they be wrong about? This is only their field of expertise, no? Oh wait: they're infallible, because they say they are—and they must be right, regardless, all the time, because they are infallible, so they tell us. Right?
It's just as good as taking as fact as book that claims there's an all-powerful, all-knowing and perfect sky fairy, and it's a fact because the book says it was written by this selfsame perfect sky fairy, so thenceforth the book must be perfectly correct—and if it ever seems incorrect, well, then you read it wrong, because it is correct, as it already established.
"We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge," quoth the Vatican's International Theological Commission.
Indeed!
Pathological lying
"Liberal bias!" What really gets me about this pervasive media myth is that it practically disproves itself.
The constant repetition of "liberal bias" in that selfsame media that's so allegedly liberal? It doesn't add up, on its face.
Wouldn't a truly liberally biased media be trying to hide its biases? Wouldn't a truly liberal media be claiming via its proxies/pundits that it's conservatively biased, so as to spur consumers to think that reality, therefore, must be more liberal than it appears in the press? I mean, come on now.
Sometimes it seems like the only clue left these days is on the shelf at Toys 'R' Us.