0
   

The Disrespect For Life

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 01:25 pm
Quote:
I disagree. When I was very young, some people told me that making fun of other peoples' tragedy was contemptible behavior, and I believe that.


Well, it's not our fault some people f*cked you up when you were a kid.

You didn't define either term, therefore, how can you disagree with what I said? I don't even think you understand what humor IS.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 01:34 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
I disagree. When I was very young, some people told me that making fun of other peoples' tragedy was contemptible behavior, and I believe that.


Well, it's not our fault some people f*cked you up when you were a kid.

You didn't define either term, therefore, how can you disagree with what I said? I don't even think you understand what humor IS.

Cycloptichorn

This is a lifelong failing of mine. People tell me jokes and I just sit there with absolutely no expression on my face at all. Once, in high school, the other kids chipped in and brought in a stand-up comic who stood in front of me and did his whole routine. Nothing. They took me to a physician who measured my head very carefully with large calipers, and he said that it is incurable.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 01:36 pm
Acute Hydrocepahalus? That would explain the vast majority of your posts nicely.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 01:43 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
I disagree. When I was very young, some people told me that making fun of other peoples' tragedy was contemptible behavior, and I believe that.


Well, it's not our fault some people f*cked you up when you were a kid.

You didn't define either term, therefore, how can you disagree with what I said? I don't even think you understand what humor IS.

Cycloptichorn

This is a lifelong failing of mine. People tell me jokes and I just sit there with absolutely no expression on my face at all. Once, in high school, the other kids chipped in and brought in a stand-up comic who stood in front of me and did his whole routine. Nothing. They took me to a physician who measured my head very carefully with large calipers, and he said that it is incurable.


Laughing
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Apr, 2005 02:02 pm
Rolling Eyes

That's all I have to say.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Apr, 2005 06:14 pm
You know what shows huge disrespect for life?

People getting all sweaty over some poor brain dead girl "being starved to death" half a continent away while they applaud Bush for cutting the school lunch programs thereby saving them a grand total of something like 50 cents in taxes.

Actually, it probably didn't save them 50 cents because they needed that money to fund some idiotic thing or another.

In my opinion, if you want to define life from a few cells frozen in some fertility clinic to people who are essentially dead without medicial support then you ought to really, really consider all of the people somewhere in the middle who are suffering who get squat.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 07:49 am
Brandon wrote:

Quote:
parados wrote:
Quote:
I can respond for weeks and you will keep spinning the same fantastical tales of her condition wasn't serious and the only thing she needed was food put in her mouth.


I defy you to find any post of mine in which I said this.

We'll let Brandon's own words make the argument with him for a while....
And now Brandon's response
Quote:
You have a tendency to zero in on one rather irrelevant portion of a post that you think contains an exploitable flaw, when you find yourself unable to address the general meaning that the poster was conveying.


And Brandon's rebuttal

Quote:
You have a point?


Now the re-rebuttal from Brandon
Quote:
In other words, you don't dare do more than make unsubstantiated charges, and will not offer support for them when challenged. Everyone knows what that means.


My response to Brandon's original question would be Brandon quotes concerning Terri Shaivo only needed food ... Consider this only part of the evidence to back up my statement... more can be found all over A2K

Quote:
Better to be a total sociopath who starves someone to death and then says that it's for her own good.
Quote:
Taking a person off food is a bit different from taking her off dialysis.
Quote:
There is a very pathetic, helpless person involved who will now be starved to death, and you show no sign whatever of empathy
Quote:
Starving someone to death is not merciful and not much of a show of empathy.
Quote:
One could equally well say that you are foisting your views on somebody for advocating the starvation of a helpless woman
Quote:
She is not dying as is often claimed or implied by the people in favor of terminating her.
Quote:
most of us just have a problem with the ethics of euthanizing people for convenience, particularly when they only require food and water to live.
Quote:
Terry Schiavo was not allowed food in the sense that ...(b) people attempting to give her food orally were forcibly turned away.
0 Replies
 
Scorpia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 12:07 pm
A good example of disrespect for life is humiliating a person in front of the entire world while they make a very hard PERSONAL decision. It doesn't get any more disrespectful than that. Michael Schiavo's personal life was not the business of the entire world. His privacy was invaded in the most inappropriate way. That's disrespect!
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Apr, 2005 11:17 pm
parados wrote:
Brandon wrote:

Quote:
parados wrote:
Quote:
I can respond for weeks and you will keep spinning the same fantastical tales of her condition wasn't serious and the only thing she needed was food put in her mouth.


I defy you to find any post of mine in which I said this.


We'll let Brandon's own words make the argument with him for a while....My response to Brandon's original question would be Brandon quotes concerning Terri Shaivo only needed food ... Consider this only part of the evidence to back up my statement... more can be found all over A2K

This is like shooting fish in a barrel, but if you insist. Let us be crystal clear about what the issue is. The quetion is whether or not I posted that "Terry Schiavo only needed food put in her mouth." He alleged that I said this, but I did not. Here is his so-called proof. I guess I have a spare minute. Let me give you the theme sentence up front. I said or implied many times that giving her food and water would have kept her alive, but I never once said that merely putting it in her mouth would have kept her alive. She was on a feeding tube and I would certainly never allege that she could have survived without it, since I have no opinion whether she could or not. So, here we go......

Quote:
Better to be a total sociopath who starves someone to death and then says that it's for her own good.

This is not a statement or equivalent to a statement that she could have survived merely having food put in her mouth. I make no claim in this statement that she could eat without a feeding tube, only that the cause of death was starvation (and dehydration) which is undeniably true. We are not debating 20 things, only whether I said that putting food in her mouth would have kept her alive. I have said many times that food (and water) would have kept her alive, but not even once that putting food in her mouth would have kept her alive.

Quote:
Taking a person off food is a bit different from taking her off dialysis.

This is not a statement or equivalent to a statement that she could have survived merely having food put in here mouth.

Quote:
There is a very pathetic, helpless person involved who will now be starved to death, and you show no sign whatever of empathy

This is not a statement or equivalent to a statement that she could have survived merely having food put in here mouth.

Quote:
Starving someone to death is not merciful and not much of a show of empathy.

This is not a statement or equivalent to a statement that she could have survived merely having food put in here mouth.

Quote:
One could equally well say that you are foisting your views on somebody for advocating the starvation of a helpless woman

This is not a statement or equivalent to a statement that she could have survived merely having food put in here mouth.

Quote:
She is not dying as is often claimed or implied by the people in favor of terminating her.

This is not a statement or equivalent to a statement that she could have survived merely having food put in here mouth.

Quote:
most of us just have a problem with the ethics of euthanizing people for convenience, particularly when they only require food and water to live.

This requires a moment of discussion. I say herein that she only needs food, but not that she only needs food put in her mouth. The difference between those two things is that I am not herein claiming that she can eat for herself, only that she can survive if given food.

Quote:
Terry Schiavo was not allowed food in the sense that ...(b) people attempting to give her food orally were forcibly turned away.

This is not a statement or equivalent to a statement that she could have survived merely having food put in here mouth.


I needed a good laugh. What puerile exercise can I expect next?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 06:54 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon,

What IS laughter? What IS humor?

Give a good definition of the two of those, and their causes, and you'll see why there really is NO inapporiate topic for jokes at all.

Cycloptichorn

I disagree. When I was very young, some people told me that making fun of other peoples' tragedy was contemptible behavior, and I believe that.

Seriously, Brandon, give us some examples of what you find funny. Not just amusing, but what gives you a real belly laugh? Three Stooges? George Carlin? Napoleon Dynamite?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 07:59 am
Brandon,
This IS like shooting fish in a barrel.

My statement.
Quote:
I can respond for weeks and you will keep spinning the same fantastical tales of her condition wasn't serious and the only thing she needed was food put in her mouth.


Note I use the word "tales."
A tale is made up of several statements.

Brandon has stated, as I showed using his quotes, that TS needed food to live and that she was NOT "allowed" food when people were prevented from giving her food orally. You can sputter and obfuscate by pointing out that none of your statements in and of themselves state the entire "tale". But I used the word "tale" and told a rather convincing "tale" using only YOUR statements.

Brandon - you can deny your own statements all you want. But you have stated that Terri only needed food to live and you have also stated that she was "not allowed food" when people were not allowed to give it to her orally. I backed up each and every point in my statement about your "tales" with a quote from you.

Are you denying you made the statements? Or are you saying they don't mean what I think they do?

You have repeatedly made various statements that Terri only needed food to live and there was nothing else that could have killed her. You can deny that if you wish. I assume that is the meaning of your statements

You stated .
Quote:
Terry Schiavo was not allowed food in the sense that ...(b) people attempting to give her food orally were forcibly turned away.
This seems pretty clear in meaning to me. Terri was not allowed food because people weren't allowed to put food in her mouth.
("food orally" would be in her mouth or are you denying that meaning?)
You also stated
Quote:
Since they both witheld food and prevented others from giving it to her, "killing" is a perfectly reasonable description.
Also pretty clear in its meaning. Terri would not have died if others (those attempting to give food to her orally) had not been prevented from doing so.

Since Terri ONLY needed food to live and she was denied food by NOT letting people put it in her mouth, would that NOT lead to the logical conclusion that she would live if food was put in her mouth? Your statements are pretty clear to me.

Explain what you really meant or explain away the logic of my conclusion based on your statements. <-------(This is the POINT of my post and it is what you SHOULD address.)
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 08:14 am
You claimed originally that I had said that all she needed to live was food being put in her mouth. This statement has two parts:

1. TS would live if she were given food (and water, of course)
2. It would be sufficient for her to live merely to place it in her mouth.

I have often said #1, but have certainly never claimed #2. I have no idea whether she could swallow or not, and have most certainly not once alleged that she could. Since half of what you attributed to me was something I had never, ever alleged, I pointed out that I had never said it.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 08:15 am
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon,

What IS laughter? What IS humor?

Give a good definition of the two of those, and their causes, and you'll see why there really is NO inapporiate topic for jokes at all.

Cycloptichorn

I disagree. When I was very young, some people told me that making fun of other peoples' tragedy was contemptible behavior, and I believe that.

Seriously, Brandon, give us some examples of what you find funny. Not just amusing, but what gives you a real belly laugh? Three Stooges? George Carlin? Napoleon Dynamite?

"Three Stooges," "Seinfeld," Woody Allen, many old sitcoms, etc.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 08:28 am
Terri Shiavo had no swallow reflex. That is why the food tube was neccessary.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 09:51 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon,

What IS laughter? What IS humor?

Give a good definition of the two of those, and their causes, and you'll see why there really is NO inapporiate topic for jokes at all.

Cycloptichorn

I disagree. When I was very young, some people told me that making fun of other peoples' tragedy was contemptible behavior, and I believe that.

Seriously, Brandon, give us some examples of what you find funny. Not just amusing, but what gives you a real belly laugh? Three Stooges? George Carlin? Napoleon Dynamite?

"Three Stooges," "Seinfeld," Woody Allen, many old sitcoms, etc.

See now, I don't find the Three Stooges funny at all. I mean, what's funny about poking someone in the eye then getting hit on the head with a hammer? To me, that's not funny, it's violence.

But I don't criticise you for finding it funny. I know that everyone has their own taste.






As an aside, I will note that many people find release in humor from things that they find painful or frightening. In fact, most of humor is based on this. Think about the pain associated with a dispassionate recital of the events in a Three Stooges or Archie Bunker episode. We laugh because it hurts.

The juvenile humor of "doing the Schiavo" is fundamentally about being afraid of that which they mock.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 10:08 am
Ah ha! Now that's what I'm talking about, Drewdad!

Quote:
As an aside, I will note that many people find release in humor from things that they find painful or frightening. In fact, most of humor is based on this.


In fact, I would go so far to say that all humor is based upon this; either pain or embarassment for some party.

Ask yourself, can you think of a single joke where there isn't pain or embarassment for one of the parties involved? I can't. The closest you can come is a pun, which doesn't really make us laugh out loud, though we can see the humor in it.

Now, to address my original point: you can make jokes about all sort of situations in life, because life hurts and laughter is how we deal with it!

It's wrong to be crass and insult someone to their face; imagine yourself present at the scene of some of the jokes you know and ask yourself if you would laugh out loud, or would you be embarassed? This doesn't keep them from being funny from a distance! Laughter is like, well, warding off bad spirits. I don't think there's such a thing as an inappropriate joke, really, as there really is no situation that can't stand to be made light of a little bit.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 10:13 am
McGentrix wrote:
Terri Shiavo had no swallow reflex. That is why the food tube was neccessary.


And probably why he had a girlfriend. :wink:
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 10:36 am
Brandon,

Quote:
1. TS would live if she were given food (and water, of course)
2. It would be sufficient for her to live merely to place it in her mouth.

I have often said #1, but have certainly never claimed #2. I have no idea whether she could swallow or not, and have most certainly not once alleged that she could. Since half of what you attributed to me was something I had never, ever alleged, I pointed out that I had never said it.


I thought I was pretty clear in showing where you stated #2
Quote:
You stated .
Quote:
:
Terry Schiavo was not allowed food in the sense that ...(b) people attempting to give her food orally were forcibly turned away.

This seems pretty clear in meaning to me. Terri was not allowed food because people weren't allowed to put food in her mouth.
("food orally" would be in her mouth or are you denying that meaning?)
You also stated
Quote:
:
Since they both witheld food and prevented others from giving it to her, "killing" is a perfectly reasonable description.

Also pretty clear in its meaning. Terri would not have died if others (those attempting to give food to her orally) had not been prevented from doing so.


Please show me where I misinterpreted your meaning in these two statements. Since preventing others from giving her food orally was "killing" then it can only mean that giving her food orally would have meant she would have lived. What other possible meaning can there be?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 10:53 am
parados wrote:
Brandon,

Quote:
1. TS would live if she were given food (and water, of course)
2. It would be sufficient for her to live merely to place it in her mouth.

I have often said #1, but have certainly never claimed #2. I have no idea whether she could swallow or not, and have most certainly not once alleged that she could. Since half of what you attributed to me was something I had never, ever alleged, I pointed out that I had never said it.


I thought I was pretty clear in showing where you stated #2
Quote:
You stated .
Quote:
:
Terry Schiavo was not allowed food in the sense that ...(b) people attempting to give her food orally were forcibly turned away.

This seems pretty clear in meaning to me. Terri was not allowed food because people weren't allowed to put food in her mouth.
("food orally" would be in her mouth or are you denying that meaning?)
You also stated
Quote:
:
Since they both witheld food and prevented others from giving it to her, "killing" is a perfectly reasonable description.

Also pretty clear in its meaning. Terri would not have died if others (those attempting to give food to her orally) had not been prevented from doing so.


Please show me where I misinterpreted your meaning in these two statements. Since preventing others from giving her food orally was "killing" then it can only mean that giving her food orally would have meant she would have lived. What other possible meaning can there be?

I never, ever stated in any post that she could have been kept alive by being given food orally. It might have worked. It might not have. I have no idea. I only state in these quotes that no one was permitted to try.

The simple fact is that I never claimed that oral administration of food would have kept her alive, and I defy you to find any post of mine in which I did assert it. I dienied saying it for the very good reason that I didn't say it. If I say, "they were not permitted to try medicine A," it is just not the same as saying, "medicine A would have worked."
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Apr, 2005 11:28 am
Again you refuse to give me a possible alternative meaning for your statements.

If as you claim you have no idea whether she could swallow or not then how could it be "killing" to prevent people from giving her food orally? You specifically accused them of killing Terri by not letting them give her food orally. There are only 2 possible explanations that I can see, 1. Your claim that you never alleged death could be prevented by giving her food orally is false. 2. Your statement about "killing" was false.

Quote:
I never, ever stated in any post that she could have been kept alive by being given food orally. It might have worked. It might not have. I have no idea. I only state in these quotes that no one was permitted to try.
Quote:
Since they both witheld food and prevented others from giving it to her, "killing" is a perfectly reasonable description.

Quote:
As for killing, anyone who deliberately sets in motion a chain of events in order to deliberately produce death in another person is killing him.


As you have just stated, you don't know whether food in her mouth would save her, yet you still referred to it as a deliberate act to cause her death to not allow food put in her mouth. Both statements of yours can not be true. Calling it a deliberate act to cause her death by preventing people from putting food in her mouth can only mean that putting food in her mouth would have prevented her death. There is no other explanation for your statement.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/07/2023 at 03:53:42