Political pediophiles
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
Political pediophiles
Is anyone here disturbed that parents would use their children as point makers ? In particular those parents who used their children to attempt delivery of food to Terri Schiavo, knowing full well the kids would be arrested? Is this form of social disobediance acceptable? Somehow I find it disturbing to see a 10 year old child in handcuffs being loaded into a police cruiser.
Re: Political pediophiles
bingo, they know you find it disturbing. it's somewhat of a point in itself that police WILL ARREST a 10 year old kid.woodchip wrote:Somehow I find it disturbing to see a 10 year old child in handcuffs being loaded into a police cruiser.
a child is an emblum for the natural love and empathy in all of us - a raw unprocessed symbol of humanity. police taking that child away in handcuffs could display a message that they are protecting Terri from the very dangerous*: "love". which inturn makes them look like monsters.
i don't nessesarily agree with this message, i'm just translating the language.
(i've not heard about this, i'm just going on what you said)
*they used handcuffs.
That pic even made it into german mainstream media.. http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,g ... 13,00.html
roid, if your translation were to hold true then the hospital would symbolize the handcuffs and Shiavo's parents would be her would be jailors 
Either way all these pro-lifers, as noble as their intentions might be, are fooling themselves and are bordering on just plain madness. This whole mess illustrates the stupidity and selfishness of some people. It needs to stop.
Either way all these pro-lifers, as noble as their intentions might be, are fooling themselves and are bordering on just plain madness. This whole mess illustrates the stupidity and selfishness of some people. It needs to stop.
Any of you hear about the girl who was trying to visit her dying grandfather as the same hospice building? Apparently, the security has gotten so tight she was not allowed because they had to do multiple security checks. Well, in the time they did that, her grandfather died, she was trying to get there to be with him at the end and she was unable. How disgusting is that? People need to leave, they just want their ten minutes of religious limelight, they could probably go to every single hospital and find people making the horrible decision of killing a family member, but they need the media. People disgust me...
that's probabaly the symbolism the opposite side would use yeah. (i doubt the report woodchip refers to would have eluded to this).Tyranny wrote:roid, if your translation were to hold true then the hospital would symbolize the handcuffs and Shiavo's parents would be her would be jailors
frankly i don't understand this story.
the wife told the husband that she didn't want to live like that, simple. to me the only controvesy would perhaps be if someone demanded that the husband somehow prove that she had previously requested this.
euthenasia is a victimless crime.
all laws against victimless crimes are controversial. prostitution, drug use, euthenasia and suicide.
maybe i should check around to get all the details of what's all the hub-bub causing this story. i'd rather not (right-wingers make me spaz out), but meh, seems i gotta. you guys have probabaly been discussing this story in detail in another thread *holds nose*
Quick summary: 15 years ago Terri Schiavo fell victim to a stroke brought on by a chemical imbalance in her body. This imbalance was a result of an eating disorder (anorexia, bulimia etc...). The stroke rendered her brain dead. Now, it may have been that this was not the case in the first year or so of the stroke. However, this is the case 15 years later. There is also debate on whether she could have recovered in some capacity in the first year or so, though a moot point now.
Anyways, her parents would like to keep her on life support (feeding tube, etc...) which only prolongs the body's life. The husband has wanted to remove her from such things and finally let the body pass away. The last decade and a half the parents and her spouse have been fighting legal battles over who gets to control what happens to her. After all this time she was finally going to be removed from the feeding tube until her parents once again stepped in trying to get the govt. to intervene on their behalf. Which is why it made the headlines again.
Anyways, her parents would like to keep her on life support (feeding tube, etc...) which only prolongs the body's life. The husband has wanted to remove her from such things and finally let the body pass away. The last decade and a half the parents and her spouse have been fighting legal battles over who gets to control what happens to her. After all this time she was finally going to be removed from the feeding tube until her parents once again stepped in trying to get the govt. to intervene on their behalf. Which is why it made the headlines again.
!
You are exactly right.Zuruck wrote:they could probably go to every single hospital and find people making the horrible decision of killing a family member
I have had to make that decision. The only thing that made it bearable, was knowing that is what my Mom would have wanted.
Any way, one of the things that really got me last week when Congress was debating this, is one Representative in particular (I don't remember which) stated quite adamantly that this was the first time that a feeding tube will have been removed with the intension being the death of the patient. That is patently wrong! It happens quite often.
It really bothered me that Congress would get involved without even knowing the facts of the situation. It was an obvious political grandstand.
isnt it every time more than 5 members of congress are in the same room?
in my opinion, the reason's this is spamming our tv's and radios are two:
1.) the media. this is a decade old story, and hardly unique.
2.) the parents. the husband has been trying to just let her rest since what, 1993? after she degenerated to the state of braindead? i dont have all the facts, but thats how i understand it. she was "still alive" for a few years but then her brain died in 92 or 93? anyway, if it werent for them making such a fuss and going to the media about this, it would have been over. the husband would have won because after someone turns 18 their parents no longer own them, their spouses do. kind of a cold way to put it, but true.
in my opinion, the reason's this is spamming our tv's and radios are two:
1.) the media. this is a decade old story, and hardly unique.
2.) the parents. the husband has been trying to just let her rest since what, 1993? after she degenerated to the state of braindead? i dont have all the facts, but thats how i understand it. she was "still alive" for a few years but then her brain died in 92 or 93? anyway, if it werent for them making such a fuss and going to the media about this, it would have been over. the husband would have won because after someone turns 18 their parents no longer own them, their spouses do. kind of a cold way to put it, but true.
ok, I found the link for that story I mentioned in my previous post.
http://www.showmenews.com/2005/Mar/20050327News015.asp
what do you think of that?
http://www.showmenews.com/2005/Mar/20050327News015.asp
what do you think of that?
Because the media tells us we shouldFerno wrote:Also.. why should we even care about it?
Seriously, I'd rather debate, discuss an issue like this here then watch it on tv knowing that they're making money off of it.Atleast here I know they don't earn a single cent off of their sensationalist bullshiat.
yeah that's the way i see it too, i don't see how the parents have a leg to stand on. and don't see wtf it has to do with your government (i think the courts handle it just fine yes?).kurupt wrote:anyway, if it werent for them making such a fuss and going to the media about this, it would have been over. the husband would have won because after someone turns 18 their parents no longer own them, their spouses do. kind of a cold way to put it, but true.
are you sure she's braindead tyranny? braindead means DEADDEAD. like... even the stem is kapput, no breathing, that's braindead. she's not even in a coma, she's kinda vegetable-like.
even so, as i understand it she requested to her husband that he should let her die if she were like that. so stfu media, this case has a ★■◆●ing obvious answer - she dies.
hmm, although perhaps the media will get people thinking about NICER ways for her to die rather than dehydration, that's not nice.
she should be euthenised - but that's illegal.
so perhaps this will get that issue on the public consciousness again eh. i'd like to see that legalised.
the problem with legailizing euthanasia is exmplified with the Schaivo case - namely that a well-crafted media campaign can illict unwarrented politcal intervention, in additon to a very-high legal bar that only a few cases would pass in order to prevent abuse - the accusations that Michael Schaivo was complicit in his wife's current condition.
that's called brain damage.
if i hurt you, you won't be catagorised as partially DEAD, you will be catagorised as damaged.
braindeath is medical terminology that means TOTAL UNRECOVERABLE DEATH. that's why it's not a good idea to use it when referring to breathing people. coz the LIVING brainstem controls your breathing.
she's not braindead, she's not even comatose.
if i hurt you, you won't be catagorised as partially DEAD, you will be catagorised as damaged.
braindeath is medical terminology that means TOTAL UNRECOVERABLE DEATH. that's why it's not a good idea to use it when referring to breathing people. coz the LIVING brainstem controls your breathing.
she's not braindead, she's not even comatose.
Nevermind roid. Obviously you can't think outside the box and apply said terminology to the part of the brain that makes us the sentient beings that we are.
I know what the true clinical definition of "braindead" is. I've been in and around modern medicine and healthcare for most of my life. If you remove yourself from the clinical definition however, "braindead" certainly applies, if only simplistically, to Terri Schiavo's condition.
It's irrelevant to me that the part of her brain that controls breathing still functions. So I hope you can understand where I am coming from. I'm a simple man and I don't get caught up easily in frivolous issues in semantics.
I know what the true clinical definition of "braindead" is. I've been in and around modern medicine and healthcare for most of my life. If you remove yourself from the clinical definition however, "braindead" certainly applies, if only simplistically, to Terri Schiavo's condition.
It's irrelevant to me that the part of her brain that controls breathing still functions. So I hope you can understand where I am coming from. I'm a simple man and I don't get caught up easily in frivolous issues in semantics.
the brain and what makes us who we are is a subject very important to me Tyranny. i have eluded to my continuing interest in psychology here before.
i'm not a simple man, as you may have gathered.
i take acception to someone referring to a brain as "it's dun broke". it's not semantics to believe there are states of functioning inbetween.
in pointing out that she was not braindead, i ment to imply that she was actually far from it. yes her brainstem seems functional and this is enough to refute accusations of braindeath (the semantics you refer to), however her healthy functioning/semifunctioning brain likely extends beyond just her brainstem. from what i've seen of her, she's a vegetable, but i've seen more vegetative states than her - people with worse damage.
my point was that, relatively i don't think she's all that bad.
or if you wanna use the term "braindead" as a scale, then i'll say that i've seen ppl more "braindead" than her, while not being actually dead.
i'm not a simple man, as you may have gathered.
i take acception to someone referring to a brain as "it's dun broke". it's not semantics to believe there are states of functioning inbetween.
in pointing out that she was not braindead, i ment to imply that she was actually far from it. yes her brainstem seems functional and this is enough to refute accusations of braindeath (the semantics you refer to), however her healthy functioning/semifunctioning brain likely extends beyond just her brainstem. from what i've seen of her, she's a vegetable, but i've seen more vegetative states than her - people with worse damage.
my point was that, relatively i don't think she's all that bad.
or if you wanna use the term "braindead" as a scale, then i'll say that i've seen ppl more "braindead" than her, while not being actually dead.
Tyranny just can't deal with being completely wrong. Braindead is a completely INAPPROPRIATE term to apply to her. Braindead people cannot breathe or digest on their own. Terri Schiavo can. Persistent Vegitative State is the proper medical term. It's like a full frontal lobotomy.
She has no quality of life. She doesn't respond to affection or other people. It's the husband's legal right to say "pull the plug". Sorry folks, but quitcherbitchin and let her go already.
She has no quality of life. She doesn't respond to affection or other people. It's the husband's legal right to say "pull the plug". Sorry folks, but quitcherbitchin and let her go already.
lol, from what i've been reading today about the general location within the brain of the 4 jungian cognative functions, one may be excused for assuming a typical woman would be ok if her front brain were removedDCrazy wrote:It's like a full frontal lobotomy.
(the Sensing and Feeling functions both seem to be centred in rear sections).
had to have a laugh at that.
It's frustrating to see how easily people get hung up on straight forward dictionary definitions. Like it's really all that hard to think around them. Afterall, we created the language for cripes sake. Like I mentioned before D, I know what "braindead" as it is defined, means.
Part of Terri Schiavo's "brain" is "dead". Does she fall under the clinical definition of being braindead? No. That isn't to say that the phrase can not be associated with her condition. This again is simple, but it most certainly can be applied despite most people's blind adherence to language standards which, in all actuality, can be quite multifaceted.
To me the phrase "vegetative state" is misleading as well. Vegetables are inanimate objects. Terri Schiavo is not. She is not a coma patient, where, though recoverable and still animate, people more closely resemble a vegetable. See, simple true, but sometimes simple is essential to wade through all the bulllshilt.
I'm a little insulted by your reaction to my "simple man" statement roid. I take offense to the fact that you tried to paint my ideology out to be a typical "stupid redneck" reaction. The ironic thing is that the "it dun broke" concept works in her case. Sometimes things that break can be repaired. Sadly this is not possible for Terri Schiavo. Nowhere did I state or argue that you couldn't believe there are states of functioning inbetween. You must have misunderstood that I was refering to the semantics about the use of the term "braindead" and the term only. As illustrated at the beginning of this reply.
I said I was simple...not a simpleton. It keeps things in perspective. Please do not confuse the two.
Part of Terri Schiavo's "brain" is "dead". Does she fall under the clinical definition of being braindead? No. That isn't to say that the phrase can not be associated with her condition. This again is simple, but it most certainly can be applied despite most people's blind adherence to language standards which, in all actuality, can be quite multifaceted.
To me the phrase "vegetative state" is misleading as well. Vegetables are inanimate objects. Terri Schiavo is not. She is not a coma patient, where, though recoverable and still animate, people more closely resemble a vegetable. See, simple true, but sometimes simple is essential to wade through all the bulllshilt.
I'm a little insulted by your reaction to my "simple man" statement roid. I take offense to the fact that you tried to paint my ideology out to be a typical "stupid redneck" reaction. The ironic thing is that the "it dun broke" concept works in her case. Sometimes things that break can be repaired. Sadly this is not possible for Terri Schiavo. Nowhere did I state or argue that you couldn't believe there are states of functioning inbetween. You must have misunderstood that I was refering to the semantics about the use of the term "braindead" and the term only. As illustrated at the beginning of this reply.
I said I was simple...not a simpleton. It keeps things in perspective. Please do not confuse the two.
your previous "Obviously you can't think outside the box" post insulted me, that's why i responded as i did. it was a calculated post i reworded many times before sending.Tyranny wrote:I'm a little insulted by your reaction to my "simple man" statement roid. I take offense to the fact that you tried to paint my ideology out to be a typical "stupid redneck" reaction.
i'm nice to ppl here, don't step on my toes. there's no need.
It was just surprising that someone like you, who is arguably the most eccentric person here, would be hung up on trivial word usage. As eccentric as I am, I was assuming you'd be able to look passed it and understand the reasoning behind using a term like "braindead" and just continue the conversation.
That was a mistake on my part, to assume you would or that anybody would for that matter. The last thing I expected was to have to defend the simple logic behind why I used a term like "braindead" in the first place. One of my little quarks, and it irritates me to no end, is how easily people get hung up on language. How hard it is for people to just put the whole picture together. Language is an important thing, it's communicative properties are essential to discussion. Getting into a fight over word usage takes away from that when most of the words in the english language, like I mentioned before, are extremely multifaceted.
So much so that many of them should not be limited to common dictionary defined principals. That is only my opinion of course. It's an idea that has never really been hard for me to understand. Which is why I get frustrated by others when they nitpick things that I consider extremely trivial.
I know you think outside the box roid. The evidence of that is plastered about this board multiple times over. So far outside the box sometimes that you even alienate yourself from someone like me
I was hoping that statement would get you to understand my point of view. I didn't intend to offend you. Usually when I decide to engage in a discussion, statements such as those are meant to stimulate. To force someone out of their position.
Anyways, I guess this topic got thoroughly derailed. As quiet as I am in person sometimes it seems it is better to discuss current events in person...
That was a mistake on my part, to assume you would or that anybody would for that matter. The last thing I expected was to have to defend the simple logic behind why I used a term like "braindead" in the first place. One of my little quarks, and it irritates me to no end, is how easily people get hung up on language. How hard it is for people to just put the whole picture together. Language is an important thing, it's communicative properties are essential to discussion. Getting into a fight over word usage takes away from that when most of the words in the english language, like I mentioned before, are extremely multifaceted.
So much so that many of them should not be limited to common dictionary defined principals. That is only my opinion of course. It's an idea that has never really been hard for me to understand. Which is why I get frustrated by others when they nitpick things that I consider extremely trivial.
I know you think outside the box roid. The evidence of that is plastered about this board multiple times over. So far outside the box sometimes that you even alienate yourself from someone like me
I was hoping that statement would get you to understand my point of view. I didn't intend to offend you. Usually when I decide to engage in a discussion, statements such as those are meant to stimulate. To force someone out of their position. Anyways, I guess this topic got thoroughly derailed. As quiet as I am in person sometimes it seems it is better to discuss current events in person...
Nothing in professional medicine is trivial. I can tell you that not only from second-hand (my mom is a doctor) but from first-hand (I work in a hospital) experience. Correct usage of words is critical, and unfortunately you have to be pedantic when you're discussing the Schiavo case because of its double-whammy medical and legal nature. The word "braindead" has certain connotations and meanings which are intrinsic to the word and cannot be disregarded. You can't call someone "braindead-like", because "braindead" refers to a specific set of criteria -- namely that the brain is dead. "Vegetative" describes the effects of her atrophied brain: the inability to move, produce thought, or experience emotion.
You may not like it when people get hung up on word usage but in some settings it's necessary. Your indifference to that fact is what set me off, and your arrogance in defending that indifference, employing such buzzwords as "think outside the box", is what prompted me to reply in my tone.
You may not like it when people get hung up on word usage but in some settings it's necessary. Your indifference to that fact is what set me off, and your arrogance in defending that indifference, employing such buzzwords as "think outside the box", is what prompted me to reply in my tone.
It's comforting to know that defending your own position is considered an act of arrogance. While I agree completely with most of what you've said we get down to a key point. None of that helped Terri Schiavo. All the media crap and specialist commentary was meaningless. That is why the word usage was trivial. More so then my personal quarks. It didn't matter what her condition was. Public opinion meant absolutely nothing. The point was that nothing more could be done for her and the whole thing was becoming a circus.
As for arrogance. It is arrogant for you to assume that I am incapable of understanding why said words are defined as they are and furthermore know what those definitions are. Regardless of my personal views I have a healthy understanding of why things are as they are. Also it was already mentioned that I've been associated with healthcare for most of my life. This too I have a healthy understanding of. I've already made my case and now that I've put it out there I don't really care if you guys understand where I'm coming from or not.
This just reaffirms another belief that arguements are pointless because everyone sticks to their guns and nobody can convince them otherwise. We have some stupidalss need to constantly voice our thoughts even though most people don't care or even listen. I'm a stubborn son of a biatch myself. Thats enough on this one though, it's done.
As for arrogance. It is arrogant for you to assume that I am incapable of understanding why said words are defined as they are and furthermore know what those definitions are. Regardless of my personal views I have a healthy understanding of why things are as they are. Also it was already mentioned that I've been associated with healthcare for most of my life. This too I have a healthy understanding of. I've already made my case and now that I've put it out there I don't really care if you guys understand where I'm coming from or not.
This just reaffirms another belief that arguements are pointless because everyone sticks to their guns and nobody can convince them otherwise. We have some stupidalss need to constantly voice our thoughts even though most people don't care or even listen. I'm a stubborn son of a biatch myself. Thats enough on this one though, it's done.
the DBB just "DOES" something to me manTyranny wrote:It was just surprising that someone like you, who is arguably the most eccentric person here, would be hung up on trivial word usage.
. it puts me into boring scientist mode.(actually it's heavily developed my introverted thinking (Ti) function)