Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Gonnagle on September 11, 2015, 12:26:45 PM
-
Dear Forum,
Listening to the debate regarding Assisted Dying, my stance on politicians is changing, why can all debate not be carried out in this very adult fashion.
I know this is a very emotive issue but are not most decisions taken in the House of Commons emotive.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Forum,
Listening to the debate regarding Assisted Dying, my stance on politicians is changing, why can all debate not be carried out in this very adult fashion.
I know this is a very emotive issue but are not most decisions taken in the House of Commons emotive.
Gonnagle.
Well I think our perception of the House of Commons and its debates is massively clouded by the yah boo of Prime Ministers Questions. Not all debates are like that.
The other relevant point here is that this is a private members bill and a free vote, so also protected from the tribal party politics often so evident in Parliament.
-
Dearie Me,
The Speaker has just asked the House to be more brief when they speak, sorry but that deserves a "Fuck me" the debate is assisted dying!!
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Forum,
Listening to the debate regarding Assisted Dying, my stance on politicians is changing, why can all debate not be carried out in this very adult fashion.
I know this is a very emotive issue but are not most decisions taken in the House of Commons emotive.
Someone suggested to me the other day that topics like this tend not to involve MPs talking about stuff they have any serious knowledge or experience of. As such, they have to rely on other people's views and understandings. Whilst they may have some strong religious or ethical views on the matter, they have to express these within the context of their research.
I also believe that this is a free vote, not a party political one, which also takes some of the heat out of it.
By the way, I notice that an equivalent bill was voted down by MSPs earlier this year.
-
Dear Prof,
Tribal party politics, sad, very sad.
Gonnagle.
-
Dearie Me,
The Speaker has just asked the House to be more brief when they speak, sorry but that deserves a "Fuck me" the debate is assisted dying!!
Gonnagle.
Gonners, there may be a large number of MPs who wish to speak, so asking individuals to be succinct allows for as many as possible to do so. I'm not saying that this is definitely the case, but there may be those who would like time to run out on the Bill thus killing it.
-
Dearie Me,
The Speaker has just asked the House to be more brief when they speak, sorry but that deserves a "Fuck me" the debate is assisted dying!!
Gonnagle.
Gonners, there may be a large number of MPs who wish to speak, so asking individuals to be succinct allows for as many as possible to do so. I'm not saying that this is definitely the case, but there may be those who would like time to run out on the Bill thus killing it.
That's probably correct.
There will only be a set (and rather limited) amount of time allocated to this private members bill and I think that it is correct for the speaker to expect MPs to be as brief as is reasonable to allow more MPs to be able to have a say.
-
Dear Prof,
Tribal party politics, sad, very sad.
Gonnagle.
But true
-
topics like this tend not to involve MPs talking about stuff they have any serious knowledge or experience of. As such, they have to rely on other people's views and understandings. Whilst they may have some strong religious or ethical views on the matter, they have to express these within the context of their research.
But isn't that also the case for many others who hold themselves up as some kind of expert on the topic and attract high levels of media attention for their views - notably religious leaders.
The people we really need to be listening to are those who are suffering at the end of their lives and their close family. Secondarily to the medical profession involved in their care, but even they don't really have such direct experience.
-
Dear Hope,
Politicians for me are a emotive subject, so forgive me if my responses are emotive, if they have to bring in sleeping bags and sandwiches so that all can be heard fully, then so be it.
Words like suicide, assisted dying, palliative care are being mentioned, it should be discussed fully.
Gonnagle.
-
The people we really need to be listening to are those who are suffering at the end of their lives and their close family. Secondarily to the medical profession involved in their care, but even they don't really have such direct experience.
I actually feel that whilst the opinions of those who are suffering need to be heard - and I believe that they have been heard quite loudly over the last 5-10 years - their opinion can be seen to be highly individualized, something that we already know isn't the best evidence around, whilst this issue needs to be decided more unemotionally.
-
The people we really need to be listening to are those who are suffering at the end of their lives and their close family. Secondarily to the medical profession involved in their care, but even they don't really have such direct experience.
I actually feel that whilst the opinions of those who are suffering need to be heard - and I believe that they have been heard quite loudly over the last 5-10 years - their opinion can be seen to be highly individualized, something that we already know isn't the best evidence around, whilst this issue needs to be decided more unemotionally.
FirstlyI don't think their views have been heard sufficiently.
But your point about individual experience being, well highly individualised, is the whole point. What this bill is about is giving people choice, to allow individuals to make their own choice, rather than have certain options banned, in a kind of one-size fits all approach.
Different people will want different things at the end of their life, and surely we should be in a position to provide those options and not forcing people into a situation which is what they desperately don't want as is the case at the moment.
-
FirstlyI don't think their views have been heard sufficiently.
But your point about individual experience being, well highly individualised, is the whole point. What this bill is about is giving people choice, to allow individuals to make their own choice, rather than have certain options banned, in a kind of one-size fits all approach.
Different people will want different things at the end of their life, and surely we should be in a position to provide those options and not forcing people into a situation which is what they desperately don't want as is the case at the moment.
Bravo.
-
Dear Hope,
Well my main purpose for this thread was to highlight the conduct of the house but this is a emotive subject and many emotional stories are being told in the house.
Brilliant emotive orators has already been mentioned, emotion, love, compassion, empathy, is at the heart of this debate.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Forum,
Listening to the debate regarding Assisted Dying, my stance on politicians is changing, why can all debate not be carried out in this very adult fashion.
I know this is a very emotive issue but are not most decisions taken in the House of Commons emotive.
Gonnagle.
-
Doesn't affecct my country.
What happens in the pseudodemocratic absurdity of Wastemonster only concerns me if it affects my country.
-
Doesn't affecct my country.
What happens in the pseudodemocratic absurdity of Wastemonster only concerns me if it affects my country.
Doesn't it. Scottish MPs will be voting one way or the other; whether this bill will supersede the Scottish Parliament's vote earlier this year, I don't fully know.
-
Dear Forum,
Listening to the debate regarding Assisted Dying, my stance on politicians is changing, why can all debate not be carried out in this very adult fashion.
I know this is a very emotive issue but are not most decisions taken in the House of Commons emotive.
Gonnagle.
-
Doesn't affecct my country.
What happens in the pseudodemocratic absurdity of Wastemonster only concerns me if it affects my country.
What an appallingly small minded, narrowly parochial, petty nationalist you are. Shame on you.
And also totally wrong.
One of the major factors that is driving the current debate in westminster is the law in Switzerland. In your narrow mindedness what happens in Zurich has no effect on the UK - but it does, and the same would be the case if assisted dying were legalised in England.
Were that to happen then there would be a steady stream of Scots heading south of the border because of differences in the law. And that will massively affect the debate in Scotland and the drive to change the law north of the border.
Take the blinkers off and you might just see that there is a bigger world outside.
-
I actually feel that whilst the opinions of those who are suffering need to be heard - and I believe that they have been heard quite loudly over the last 5-10 years - their opinion can be seen to be highly individualized, something that we already know isn't the best evidence around, whilst this issue needs to be decided more unemotionally.
Why? It's all about emotion. It's about how we feel about what's happening in our lives, about the possibility that we could be prompted to feel things if options were available against the feeling of being trapped, constrained and compelled if they aren't available.
How we feel is the point of this, the facts of death, injury, disease and suicide are all relatively well understood: the impacts of them on our emotional well-being less so.
O.
-
I heard on the news this morning that whilst the present AofC is against this bill, the former AofC George Carey is for it!
-
I heard on the news this morning that whilst the present AofC is against this bill, the former AofC George Carey is for it!
That's true.
Although interestingly George Carey is a recent convert, due to conversation he had with people affected and he was not in favour while he was ABoC.
And that leads to another point - I sometimes wonder whether certain religious leaders are really against certain things (e.g. contraception, homosexuality for the Pope) or assisted dying for an ABoC, or whether they feel that they have to be seen to be against due to their position. Sometimes we seem to be crying out for a little personal moral courage rather than hiding behind the orthodox institutional position.
-
Dear Queen Victoria,
Bloody hell!! Division in the house, who can shout loud enough.
Boy!! today has been an eye opener, does the house realise the telephone has been invented.
Only thing missing is Wigs and smoke from cigars. :o
Gonnagle.
-
You need to check out the pink ribbon they get to hang their swords from in the cloakroom, Gonzo. And no, I am not joking.
-
Dear Sane,
Awright big man. ;D
Every days a school day. :o
But I have to say my respect for politicians has risen, slightly, very very slightly. 8)
Gonnagle.
-
One of the best comments from the BBC coverage of the debate:
Its good to know that my rabbit will have a painless and dignified death but I might not. Fascinating morality. Oh well, at least I can be comforted that one of Welby's representatives will be on hand to pray for me, so I can punch him in the face.
-
One of the best comments from the BBC coverage of the debate:
Its good to know that my rabbit will have a painless and dignified death but I might not. Fascinating morality. Oh well, at least I can be comforted that one of Welby's representatives will be on hand to pray for me, so I can punch him in the face.
Shakes, if what you, ippy and others here are so keen to tell us really is the case, I suspect that Welby's comments had little or no influence on the large majority who voted against the bill.
-
Shakes, if what you, ippy and others here are so keen to tell us really is the case, I suspect that Welby's comments had little or no influence on the large majority who voted against the bill.
This is the same head of the established state church with media coverage of his every utterance, is it?
-
Sometimes we seem to be crying out for a little personal moral courage rather than hiding behind the orthodox institutional position.
And, of course, personal moral courage can never involve standing against the current popular way of thinking, PD, can it.
-
Sometimes we seem to be crying out for a little personal moral courage rather than hiding behind the orthodox institutional position.
And, of course, personal moral courage can never involve standing against the current popular way of thinking, PD, can it.
Not in this case, no, absolutely not.
-
This is the same head of the established state church with media coverage of his every utterance, is it?
Thankfully, we get to hear only a small number of his utterances, Shakes. After all, we don't get to hear his every sermon, do we? We probably get to hear more of Mr Corbyn's utterances than the ABofC's.
-
Thankfully, we get to hear only a small number of his utterances, Shakes. After all, we don't get to hear his every sermon, do we?
Thankfully not.
We probably get to hear more of Mr Corbyn's utterances than the ABofC's.
Highly unlikely, but how nice if that were true.
-
Not in this case, no, absolutely not.
Why not? Are you saying that - in a free vote - 330 MPs chose to hide behind the orthodox institutional position rather than show a little personal moral courage?
-
Why not? Are you saying that - in a free vote - 330 MPs chose to hide behind the orthodox institutional position rather than show a little personal moral courage?
Yes.
-
Sometimes we seem to be crying out for a little personal moral courage rather than hiding behind the orthodox institutional position.
And, of course, personal moral courage can never involve standing against the current popular way of thinking, PD, can it.
Sure it can.
But if you are a religious leader to go against the popular way of thinking is to go against the orthodoxy of your religion. That there are others with differing views not in your religion isn't really the issue.
So to give an example - the Tory party have always been, well conservative, particularly on social issues. That's the point. So if you are a Tory leader the expectation is that you aren't going to go out of your way to promote liberal social ideas. It would take personal moral courage to stare down your own party's ideological orthodoxy and argue for liberal social reform. So (for all his faults in other respects) Cameron showed considerable moral courage and leadership in facing down the orthodox view in his party and arguing for equal marriage.
For someone leading the liberal party to do so would be far less unexpected so would really be just going with the flow.
So for the religious leaders a level of personal moral courage and leadership would involve using their leadership position to argue against the orthodox religious view, not to simply fold in behind it.
-
Highly unlikely, but how nice if that were true.
OK, Corbyn was a bit of a stretch, though it could well true - we wait with bated breathe. Regardless of whether he wins the election or not, it'll simply add another voice of partiality to debates.
-
Not in this case, no, absolutely not.
Why not? Are you saying that - in a free vote - 330 MPs chose to hide behind the orthodox institutional position rather than show a little personal moral courage?
No because we aren't talking about religious leaders, so the MPs aren't so overtly aligned with a particular manner of thinking based on allegiance to a political party.
You might argue (but even then I'm not sure it works) that tories are institutionally against this and labour in favour so for an MP to go against the grain of that 'party' orthodoxy might be considered as demonstrating moral courage.
But I don't think this really holds water because their isn't really a clear link between a party ideology and a view on assisted death in the manner that there is with religion.
-
But if you are a religious leader to go against the popular way of thinking is to go against the orthodoxy of your religion. That there are others with differing views not in your religion isn't really the issue.
I would disagree. That orthodoxy might be the only voice speaking against the argumentum ad populum. To stick to that orthodoxy in the face of abuse and ridicule can require considerable personal moral courage.
So for the religious leaders a level of personal moral courage and leadership would involve using their leadership position to argue against the orthodox religious view, not to simply fold in behind it.
Don't worry, plenty have, and do. For instance, we wouldn't have remarriage of divorcees in church if it hadn't happened. However, speaking out against the orthodoxy isn't necessarily speaking out for truth.
I have noticed that when the ABofC and other church leaders speak out against things like Wonga and invasions of other nations, there is a fairly muted response, but when there is a comment about something that is supported by a minority (on the assumption that the rest of society will roll over) there is a massive outcry.
-
I have noticed that when the ABofC and other church leaders speak out against things like Wonga and invasions of other nations, there is a fairly muted response, but when there is a comment about something that is supported by a minority (on the assumption that the rest of society will roll over) there is a massive outcry.
When people had a muted response to Welby's pronouncements on Wonga it was because of the hypocrisy of someone who runs a massive financial group with tax exemptions and questionable investments criticising someone else's financial dealings.
As to this issue, Welby isn't commenting on something that's supported by a public minority - the majority of the public are in favour of assisted dying.
O.
-
But I don't think this really holds water because their isn't really a clear link between a party ideology and a view on assisted death in the manner that there is with religion.
Oddly enough, I heard a cleric this morning using exactly the same reasoning for allowing assisted death as I'd heard from a second cleric yesterday for voting against it. Both regarded the value of human live as their starting point.
-
But if you are a religious leader to go against the popular way of thinking is to go against the orthodoxy of your religion. That there are others with differing views not in your religion isn't really the issue.
I would disagree. That orthodoxy might be the only voice speaking against the argumentum ad populum. To stick to that orthodoxy in the face of abuse and ridicule can require considerable personal moral courage.
Sure it could be - but it isn't in this case. We have had religious leaders on mass trotting out the 'party line'. Whether that is because they all believe it or because they are afraid to voice doubt on the issue (which would of course require personal moral courage).
Try it this way - did it take a level of personal moral courage (I use the word moral advisedly) for Blair in his clause 4 moment - i.e. speaking against the orthodox view of default to state ownership - sure it did because he was going against the orthodox view in his 'tribe'. Would that be the same for John Major (at the same time) of course not as speaking out against public ownership was the default position in his tribe.
If the ABoC speaks out against assisted dying he is merely repeating the orthodox view of his tribe - that requires very little moral courage.
-
If the ABoC speaks out against assisted dying he is merely repeating the orthodox view of his tribe - that requires very little moral courage.
Moral courage would be to do what George Carey has done with regard to this debate ... apart from the fact that it takes not very much moral courage to state your views years after stepping down from the office as compared to doing it while you're still in the bloody job.
-
But I don't think this really holds water because their isn't really a clear link between a party ideology and a view on assisted death in the manner that there is with religion.
Oddly enough, I heard a cleric this morning using exactly the same reasoning for allowing assisted death as I'd heard from a second cleric yesterday for voting against it. Both regarded the value of human live as their starting point.
Having the same precept doesn't even equate to the same reasoning, but as it is it doesn't seem as if they have the same precept - one of them sees life as a quality that someone has, the other sees life as something someone does.
If life is something one has, the value is maintained by keeping that life with the person, regardless of the person. If life is something one does, the value is a subjective one of how well that person is realising that life.
O.
-
But I don't think this really holds water because their isn't really a clear link between a party ideology and a view on assisted death in the manner that there is with religion.
Oddly enough, I heard a cleric this morning using exactly the same reasoning for allowing assisted death as I'd heard from a second cleric yesterday for voting against it. Both regarded the value of human live as their starting point.
Of course there are some religious leaders (or ex leaders who have argued for assisted dying) - Carey being perhaps the most obvious.
Try it this way - there is a bit in the first (I think) Harry Potter book where Neville Longbottom tries to prevent Potter et al from doing something (he gets zapped by Hermione). Anyhow at the very end of the book Dumbledore make the following point - to stand up against your enemies takes courage, but to stand up to your friends takes more courage. That's the point - for a religious leader to argue against assisted dying he or she is standing up against the perceived 'enemies' of that religion - to argue in favour requires a greater level of moral courage - to stand up to your friends.
-
When people had a muted response to Welby's pronouncements on Wonga it was because of the hypocrisy of someone who runs a massive financial group with tax exemptions and questionable investments criticising someone else's financial dealings.
So what is your excuse for the muted response to Rowan Williams comments about the Invasion of Iraq? Regarding 'questionable investments' isn't British society possibly even more guilty of this, relying heavily on such investments for the well-being of pension funds? Investments that, over the last 20-odd years, perhaps longer, CoE Commissioners have worked hard to remove from their portfolio.
As to this issue, Welby isn't commenting on something that's supported by a public minority - the majority of the public are in favour of assisted dying.
But the problem is that the 75-80% who are in favour in principle is cut in half when actual methodology and practice is discussed.
-
But the problem is that the 75-80% who are in favour in principle is cut in half when actual methodology and practice is discussed.
Evidence please.
-
So what is your excuse for the muted response to Rowan Williams comments about the Invasion of Iraq?
From memory millions of people stood up against the invasion of Iraq - including an estimated 1-2 million on a single march in London.
Sure they might not have been pouring over every word from Rowan Williams, but that would be because he wasn't at the forefront of the campaign, rather than them not agreeing with him.
-
Dear Forum,
Listening to the debate regarding Assisted Dying, my stance on politicians is changing, why can all debate not be carried out in this very adult fashion.
I know this is a very emotive issue but are not most decisions taken in the House of Commons emotive.
Gonnagle.
-
Doesn't affecct my country.
What happens in the pseudodemocratic absurdity of Wastemonster only concerns me if it affects my country.
What an appallingly small minded, narrowly parochial, petty nationalist you are. Shame on you.
And also totally wrong.
One of the major factors that is driving the current debate in westminster is the law in Switzerland. In your narrow mindedness what happens in Zurich has no effect on the UK - but it does, and the same would be the case if assisted dying were legalised in England.
Were that to happen then there would be a steady stream of Scots heading south of the border because of differences in the law. And that will massively affect the debate in Scotland and the drive to change the law north of the border.
Take the blinkers off and you might just see that there is a bigger world outside.
Applause.
-
So what is your excuse for the muted response to Rowan Williams comments about the Invasion of Iraq?
I don't need excuses, I was giving explanations - personally I was against the invasion of Iraq, as were many of the sources I was reading at the time, so in the main I saw agreement with him in the media. As to why it may have been muted - they probably (justifiably) wondered what relevance a Christian religious spokesman might have to a debate about an oil-inspired invasion of Muslim regions by a Western military-industrial complex.
Regarding 'questionable investments' isn't British society possibly even more guilty of this, relying heavily on such investments for the well-being of pension funds? Investments that, over the last 20-odd years, perhaps longer, CoE Commissioners have worked hard to remove from their portfolio.
Arguably, yes, but those financial institutions haven't been making pronouncements on morality for the populace at the same time.
But the problem is that the 75-80% who are in favour in principle is cut in half when actual methodology and practice is discussed.
Assuming that figure's correct (I've not seen anything to support it, but it's entirely plausible) why isn't Parliament asking a body to review the methodology rather than having a blanket vote on kicking it into touch? Why isn't Welby asking people to tighten the controls or rethink the qualification criteria? He's doing so because he's not a public representative, he's not there to represent the populace, he's there to represent the orthodoxy, just as he was when he prevaricated over gay priests and underwhelmed on support for female bishops.
O.
-
This is worth a look.
https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/support-us/religious-support/
-
Dear Forum,
As was discussed in the house, 80% of the population are in favour but it dropped to 47% when method was discussed.
I do think personally that it was sad it did not reach a second reading, everyone in the house thanked the gentleman who brought the bill before the house, it needs to be discussed, not just by the house but by everyone.
Gonnagle.
-
That's the point - for a religious leader to argue against assisted dying he or she is standing up against the perceived 'enemies' of that religion - to argue in favour requires a greater level of moral courage - to stand up to your friends.
But there is no Christian 'standpoint' or 'position' on assisted dying, PD. Even the CofE's position is based primarily on what might be deemed secular reasoning. As such there are no perceived 'enemies' of the religion on this issue; just very different attitudes to the protection of the vulnerable - both often held by members of the faith and both often argued for by said members.
-
But there is no Christian 'standpoint' or 'position' on assisted dying, PD. Even the CofE's position is based primarily on what might be deemed secular reasoning. As such there are no perceived 'enemies' of the religion on this issue; just very different attitudes to the protection of the vulnerable - both often held by members of the faith and both often argued for by said members.
Oh don't make me laugh.
Of course there is - there is a pretty well unshakable orthodoxy amongst (certainly western) religions that assisted dying/euthanasia etc etc are fundamentally morally wrong. This isn't based on pragmatism and concerns about safeguards etc (although it is sometimes disingenuously argued in that manner by some religious leaders) but dogmatic opposition. And also organised opposition - not sure about the CofE but the RCC was handing out pre-written opposition postcards/letters to send to MPs. No chance of allowing their members their own ability to decide on the matter, nor even to use their own words!!!
-
Doesn't affecct my country.
What happens in the pseudodemocratic absurdity of Wastemonster only concerns me if it affects my country.
Doesn't it. Scottish MPs will be voting one way or the other; whether this bill will supersede the Scottish Parliament's vote earlier this year, I don't fully know.
-
Sorry: this is a matrer in which Westminster has no control in Scotland.
An assisted dying bill has been put through Holyrood three times since the parliament was reconvened in 1999.
Unfortunately, on each occasion, it was defeated.
The latest attempt was introduced by the redoubtable Margo MacDonald, but she died - from Parkinsons disease - before the bill could complete its' progress through parliament.
-
Doesn't affecct my country.
What happens in the pseudodemocratic absurdity of Wastemonster only concerns me if it affects my country.
Doesn't it. Scottish MPs will be voting one way or the other; whether this bill will supersede the Scottish Parliament's vote earlier this year, I don't fully know.
-
Sorry: this is a matrer in which Westminster has no control in Scotland.
An assisted dying bill has been put through Holyrood three times since the parliament was reconvened in 1999.
Unfortunately, on each occasion, it was defeated.
The latest attempt was introduced by the redoubtable Margo MacDonald, but she died - from Parkinsons disease - before the bill could complete its' progress through parliament.
Have you not read my comment. I'll repeat:
'What an appallingly small minded, narrowly parochial, petty nationalist you are. Shame on you.
And also totally wrong.
One of the major factors that is driving the current debate in westminster is the law in Switzerland. In your narrow mindedness what happens in Zurich has no effect on the UK - but it does, and the same would be the case if assisted dying were legalised in England.
Were that to happen then there would be a steady stream of Scots heading south of the border because of differences in the law. And that will massively affect the debate in Scotland and the drive to change the law north of the border.
Take the blinkers off and you might just see that there is a bigger world outside.'
Were assisted dying to become legal in England it would, without doubt, have a major effect in Scotland. With the ability of people north of the border to travel to Carlisle to die the pressure on the Scottish government to follow suit would be overwhelming.
-
Arguably, yes, but those financial institutions haven't been making pronouncements on morality for the populace at the same time.
Agreed, but then the body that was doing so had divested form 'questionable investments' many years earlier. Remember that - for many - what are now 'questionable investments' were perfectly legit ones in the 70s, 80s and 90s when the investments were often originally made.
Assuming that figure's correct (I've not seen anything to support it, but it's entirely plausible) 1 why isn't Parliament asking a body to review the methodology rather than having a blanket vote on kicking it into touch? 2 Why isn't Welby asking people to tighten the controls or rethink the qualification criteria? He's doing so because he's not a public representative, he's not there to represent the populace, he's there to represent the orthodoxy, just as he was 3 when he prevaricated over gay priests and 4 underwhelmed on support for female bishops.
To answer this piece by piece; 1) I don't believe that a Parliamentary Bill can be amended to become the establishment of a review. A Bill can only result in legislation or nothing. It is then for the Government, with the agreement of the House of Commons, to establish a review body. 2) Because the system doesn't allow him or anyone else to argue that within the context of a debate on a Bill. 3) I suspect that he believed that allowing clergy to have same sex relationships to be wrong, so why should he go against his own conscience here? 4) Not sure whether he was a member of General Synod at the time of the farcical vote on women bishops in 2012, but his reaction to it would suggest that your characterisation is pretty wide of the mark:
Welby favours Anglican consecration of women bishops. Following a rejection of female bishops by the General Synod in November 2012, Welby spoke of a "Very grim day, most of all for women priests and supporters".
In July 2013 Justin Welby stated,
“ There's not two-thirds in each house, That's absolutely correct. [But] there's a strong desire to get it done. We aren't at the stage of saying: 'Should we ordain women as bishops?'; we're at the stage of saying: 'We're going to ordain women as bishops. How do we go about that? ”
In November 2013 Welby stated he aims to ordain women bishops while allowing space for those who disagree.
“ Today's overwhelming vote demonstrates the widespread desire of the Church of England to move ahead with ordaining women as bishops, and at the same time enabling those who disagree to flourish. There is some way to go, but we can be cautiously hopeful of good progress. ”
In February 2014 calls on Anglicans to avoid fear, prejudice and suspicion, to grasp "cultural change in the life of the church".
“ Let’s bring this down to some basics. We have agreed that we will ordain women as Bishops. At the same time we have agreed that while doing that we want all parts of the church to flourish. If we are to challenge fear we have to find a cultural change in the life of the church, in the way our groups and parties work, sufficient to build love and trust. That will mean different ways of working at every level of the church in practice in the way our meetings are structured, presented and lived out and in every form of appointment. It will, dare I say, mean a lot of careful training and development in our working methods, because the challenge for all institutions today, and us above all, is not merely the making of policy but how we then make things happen. ”
Welby would like discipline applied over appointments to prevent opponents of women bishops feeling alienated. Welby hopes to avoid a zero sum game where people feel gain for one side inevitably means loss for the other, he sees need for caution, co-operation and unity.
(Wikipedia)
Technically, the issue of women bishops should not have been voted on again until this year (iirc ): the rules say that there has to be a gap of n years between a n unsuccessful vote and a new one (and I think that n=3). It was down to Welby's determination that that was reduced to about 13 months.
-
Sorry, Prof, I disagree.
While I agree with Margo on assisted dying (against the SNP, btw), I don't agree that this is a UK matter.
The powers that allow us to formulate our own policy have been devolved.
There is already a well trodden path from Scotland to Switzerland, I'm afraid. I fervently wish it were otherwise, and that those who could not stand the unendurable agony of a pain-filled existance could end their lives at their choosing, in a place of their choosing.
I fail to see what the decision of Westminster's parliiament would mean, were they enlightend enough to have voted for the bill; other than a shortened journey for those determined to have the right to end their suffering at a time of their choosing.
Either destination, whether England or indeed Zurich, is wrong, in my opinion.
I remain committed to the individual's right to choose, after having undergone suitable medical assessment.
-
Arguably, yes, but those financial institutions haven't been making pronouncements on morality for the populace at the same time.
Agreed, but then the body that was doing so had divested form 'questionable investments' many years earlier. Remember that - for many - what are now 'questionable investments' were perfectly legit ones in the 70s, 80s and 90s when the investments were often originally made.
that isn't what we are talking about.
I think the problem was that Welby was railing against Wonga (not unreasonably) while the CofE was actually investing in the self same Wonga. That is just a bit of problem don't you think.
-
Sorry, Prof, I disagree.
While I agree with Margo on assisted dying (against the SNP, btw), I don't agree that this is a UK matter.
The powers that allow us to formulate our own policy have been devolved.
There is already a well trodden path from Scotland to Switzerland, I'm afraid. I fervently wish it were otherwise, and that those who could not stand the unendurable agony of a pain-filled existance could end their lives at their choosing, in a place of their choosing.
I fail to see what the decision of Westminster's parliiament would mean, were they enlightend enough to have voted for the bill; other than a shortened journey for those determined to have the right to end their suffering at a time of their choosing.
Either destination, whether England or indeed Zurich, is wrong, in my opinion.
I remain committed to the individual's right to choose, after having undergone suitable medical assessment.
But the point is that the ability to go to Switzerland is having an effect on the debate in both England and Scotland. But Switzerland is a fairly long way away. Were assisted dying to be legal on on side of the English/Scottish border it would massively affect the debate on the other side and I doubt that maintaining a ban would last more than a couple of years.
So the debate in England does affect Scotland. If you want assisted dying to be legal in Scotland you should be watching the debate very carefully in England and hoping that it was passed.
-
I think the problem was that Welby was railing against Wonga (not unreasonably) while the CofE was actually investing in the self same Wonga. That is just a bit of problem don't you think.
IIRC, this investment was not a direct investment by the Church Commissioners but an indirect one thanks to a pooled investment via a third party. Whilst one could argue that the commissioners should have known exactly where every investment as being invested, such 3rd party investments can change on a daily basis (though usually not quite that quickly). I don't happen to know how often the Church Commissioners meet to discuss and review such things.
-
I think the problem was that Welby was railing against Wonga (not unreasonably) while the CofE was actually investing in the self same Wonga. That is just a bit of problem don't you think.
IIRC, this investment was not a direct investment by the Church Commissioners but an indirect one thanks to a pooled investment via a third party. Whilst one could argue that the commissioners should have known exactly where every investment as being invested, such 3rd party investments can change on a daily basis (though usually not quite that quickly). I don't happen to know how often the Church Commissioners meet to discuss and review such things.
That doesn't make any difference.
If you are going to pontificate about the moral unacceptability of Wonga you'd better make sure you aren't investing in them - direct or indirect. As a major investor it is pretty easy to ensure your investment managers are clear about companies that you will and will not invest in.
It comes with the territory of trying to take a moral high ground.
-
One of the best comments from the BBC coverage of the debate:
Its good to know that my rabbit will have a painless and dignified death but I might not. Fascinating morality. Oh well, at least I can be comforted that one of Welby's representatives will be on hand to pray for me, so I can punch him in the face.
If you've got the wherewithal to punch someone in the face, You would also have the wherewithal to take your own life without needing ''assistance''.........Use your loaf, son.
-
One of the best comments from the BBC coverage of the debate:
Its good to know that my rabbit will have a painless and dignified death but I might not. Fascinating morality. Oh well, at least I can be comforted that one of Welby's representatives will be on hand to pray for me, so I can punch him in the face.
If you've got the wherewithal to punch someone in the face, You would also have the wherewithal to take your own life without needing ''assistance''.........Use your loaf, son.
That's not necessarily the case and you know it.
In any case, the provisions of the Bill which was temporarily delayed this afternoon required the subject to have the "wherewithal" to take a lethal dose of barbiturates themselves (as per the Dignitas protocols) rather than have it administered by someone else.
-
If you are going to pontificate about the moral unacceptability of Wonga you'd better make sure you aren't investing in them - direct or indirect. As a major investor it is pretty easy to ensure your investment managers are clear about companies that you will and will not invest in.
It comes with the territory of trying to take a moral high ground.
I'm not totally au fait with the situation that existed, but I understand that one can instruct one's investment managers but that sometimes a block investment can be misdirected if there are several investors involved. I don't know how long the CoE's element of the pooled investment had been in Wonga.
OK, my experience as an investor is somewhat different to an organisation such as the CofE but I do remember that I received a gift of a selection of shares for my 21st birthday from a great-aunt. It wasn't until about 3 months later than I discovered exactly what was included within that selection, by which time I'd received a dividend payment. I was, and still am adamantly against investing in arms and tobacco; so you can understand my disappointment that the two largest slices of the selection were BAT and Babcock. I instructed our family's solicitor who was handling all this kind of thing to sell them asap, and to but additional shares in some of the other companies represented in the selection - probably Boots and Wiggins Teape, iirc.
-
One of the best comments from the BBC coverage of the debate:
Its good to know that my rabbit will have a painless and dignified death but I might not. Fascinating morality. Oh well, at least I can be comforted that one of Welby's representatives will be on hand to pray for me, so I can punch him in the face.
If you've got the wherewithal to punch someone in the face, You would also have the wherewithal to take your own life without needing ''assistance''.........Use your loaf, son.
That's not necessarily the case and you know it.
In any case, the provisions of the Bill which was temporarily delayed this afternoon required the subject to have the "wherewithal" to take a lethal dose of barbiturates themselves (as per the Dignitas protocols) rather than have it administered by someone else.
I realise this has been a bad day for you.
It must come as a shock that this issue is not a religious versus atheists issue (after all we have two archbishops, one in either camp). But also religion is not to ''blame'' for the result.
-
I realise this has been a bad day for you.
As one without a suffering, pain and misery fetish, yes, it's a bad day - although, as I've said more than once, this is a temporary setback. A disappointment to me (indeed, the majority of the population) is as nothing to the crushing defeat felt by people trapped in living nightmares from which they're desperate to escape. Assisted suicide is inevitable, because in the West all the trends towards individual liberty (decriminalisation of homosexuality; female reproductive control; equal marriage and so forth) run that way and have been running that way for decades. Today's result means that it has been delayed by some time, leading directly to further avoidable suffering, but it's inevitable.
It must come as a shock that this issue is not a religious versus atheists issue (after all we have two archbishops, one in either camp). But also religion is not to ''blame'' for the result.
It shoulders some of the blame and by far the lion's share.
-
I realise this has been a bad day for you.
As one without a suffering, pain and misery fetish, yes, it's a bad day - although, as I've said more than once, this is a temporary setback. A disappointment to me (indeed, the majority of the population) is as nothing to the curshing defeat felt by people trapped in living nightmares from which they're deperate to escape. Assisted suicide is inevitable, because in the West all the trends towards individual liberty (decriminalisation of homosexuality; female reproductive control; equal marriage and so forth) run that way and have been running that way for decades. Today's result means that it has been delayed by some time, leading directly to further avoidable suffering, but it's inevitable.
It must come as a shock that this issue is not a religious versus atheists issue (after all we have two archbishops, one in either camp). But also religion is not to ''blame'' for the result.
It shoulders some of the blame and by far the lion's share.
It cannot have been easy for anybody voting in this situation and one doesn't have to be a suffering fetishist to have voted against it.
We know though that the safeguards in the bill were poor and we know there are people who want to extend this further.
To subsume such a grave issue into being part of the onward libertarian march was thankfully a grave error which was spotted by MP's.
-
Given that it was soundly defeated what makes you think the majority of the population agrees with you?
Practically every single survey and opinion poll on the subject going back decades. (I say practically as a token nod only; I can't think of a single exception).
It was defeated because our MPs (all six hundred-odd ... very representative ::) ) are apt to forget that we live in a representative democracy and they are supposed to be our servants who do our bidding.
Isn't that just an unsubstantiated claim?
It would have been if I wasn't sitting on a fuck ton of evidence in its support which I'm ready to provide as soon as you ask for it
-
I agree with your sentiment in #63, Shaker.
I'm just going to pop to the hospital again tonight to see Isabel.
I know exactly what she'll say to me - because she's said the same thing on every occasion I've visited her over the last few months.
"I want to die."
I wish I could help her.
Some of my fellow Christians might throw a hairy fit at those words, but I don't apologise for saying them.
As I posted on another thread yesterday, the medics reckon that Isabel has another two onths - at least - to endure of hellish, unremitting pain which the morphine no longer soothes.
Her spine has been gradually crumbling away for the laast few months.
She's very intelligent, perfectly lucid, has no depression - just an overwhelming longing to go.
She's also Christian.
I got into a serious argument with a twit who, Bible in hand, said "Never mind - look at the joy you'll have in eternity!"
Numpties like that need help.
Isabel knows that - and she has no doubts whatsoever re; her eternity.
But the hell on earth could be ended if only the law allowed compassion where medicine fails.
-
Given that it was soundly defeated what makes you think the majority of the population agrees with you?
Practically every single survey and opinion poll on the subject going back decades.
It was defeated because our MPs (all six hundred-odd ... very representative ::) ) are apt to forget that we live in a representative democracy and they are supposed to be our servants who do our bidding.
Isn't that just an unsubstantiated claim?
It would have been if I wasn't sitting on a fuck ton of evidence in its support which I'm ready to provide as soon as you ask for it
Shakes, you seem to forget the other evidence that I have already pointed out that the principle is supported by 80-odd% of the population, but when it comes to the practical details, that figure just about halves. So, I'll admit that perhaps the vote should have reflected the fact that - when it comes to details (as this Bill did) - about 40% agree and the other 60% don't - Oh, sorry that seems to have been the split 118 - 330. I don't know how many abstained.
-
Shakes, you seem to forget the other evidence that I have already pointed out that the principle is supported by 80-odd% of the population, but when it comes to the practical details, that figure just about halves.
No, I haven't forgotten any such "evidence." I remember you asserting as much in #42 but I don't have any recollection of you providing any substantiation for this claim as asked for by Professor Davey in #43. I've just looked through the thread again (not difficult; it isn't lengthy) and I still can't see it. So, as usual, no "evidence" to forget.
But then I guess he doesn't know you as well as I do, and isn't quite as familiar as I am with just how useless it is to ask you to back up anything you baldly assert as fact.
It's the "good reasons" why "homosexuality has been viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures" (notwithstanding the alleged two pages of notes on the subject mentioned by you a couple of weeks ago* which have also failed to materialise; Gordon and Rhiannon also expressed an interest in seeing you exhibit these "good reasons") and where I've used the negative proof fallacy more than you** all over again.
Stick to the choo-choos.
* "I curreewntly [sic] have 2 sides of A4 of notes from this exercise. Don't worry, I won't cut and paste it all, I'll summarise and condense it to headings if necessary." - August 28th 2015, 4:30pm.
** "(just look how often he wheels out the negative proof fallacy - it's practically every day that passes. Indeed, he's just done so again)... - Almost as often as you do, Shaker." - August 23rd, 6:21pm.
-
Were assisted dying to be legal on on side of the English/Scottish border it would massively affect the debate on the other side and I doubt that maintaining a ban would last more than a couple of years.
So the debate in England does affect Scotland. If you want assisted dying to be legal in Scotland you should be watching the debate very carefully in England and hoping that it was passed.
I think if Anchorman has the choice he'd move Scotland to Switzerland just to be further away from England. :) The fact is what happens in Holyboob affects Westminster and vice versa.
In saying that I admire Anchorman's position on this issue clearly based on compassion for others.
-
No, I haven't forgotten any such "evidence." I remember you asserting as much in #42 but I don't have any recollection of you providing any substantiation for this claim as asked for by Professor Davey in #43. I've just looked through the thread again (not difficult; it isn't lengthy) and I still can't see it. So, as usual, no "evidence" to forget.
Having been out during the day, I hadn't actually seen PD's post referred to above until I read this post 5 minutes ago. However, I had noticed Gonners post #49, which perhaps you haven't. Since your post to which I was responding came some time after Goners' post, you are clearly no better than me at reading every post.
-
Oh no, I saw Gonners's post; it merely repeats your assertion rather than provides evidence for it. I'm not interested in hearing the same claim made twice - we have that sort of cop-out daily here; I want to see what evidence it's supposedly based on.
So I'm still waiting, exactly as I expected to be.
-
Oh no, I saw Gonners's post; it merely repeats your assertion rather than provides evidence for it. I'm not interested in hearing the same claim made twice - we have that sort of cop-out daily here; I want to see what evidence it's supposedly based on.
So I'm still waiting, exactly as I expected to be.
No, it doesn't simply repeat my assertion, Shakes. It states that very similar figures to the ones I gave were stated in the House of Commons debate yesterday. I haven't yet had the chance to look through the Hansard record of the debate but bearing in mind that Gonners noted the reference in a post timed at 4:16 yesterday afternoon that means searching through some 4 hours of debate, something that I don't currently have time to do.
-
No, it doesn't simply repeat my assertion, Shakes. It states that very similar figures to the ones I gave were stated in the House of Commons debate yesterday.
That's right - simple repetition, no substantiation.
I haven't yet had the chance to look through the Hansard record of the debate but bearing in mind that Gonners noted the reference in a post timed at 4:16 yesterday afternoon that means searching through some 4 hours of debate, something that I don't currently have time to do.
Convenient. If it's anything like the evidence for your prior bald assertions we're going to be waiting a long, long time.
-
Dear Shaker,
No one in the house actually questioned those figures, in fact that seemed to be one of the big sticking points, the methodology of the process.
Assisted dying, the way it is administered can go wrong, this was a big part of the debate.
Gonnagle.
-
No one in the house actually questioned those figures
Yes, and that's a bit of a problem.
-
No one in the house actually questioned those figures
Yes, and that's a bit of a problem.
Yes, it is, isn't it, Shaker. This refers to a ComRes/CARE poll from the summer of 2014, as reported here: http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/public-opinion/assisted-dying-public-opinion/ The reason why I have taken a bit of time finding this - what I believe is a primary source - is that there are a number of organisations with the 'CARE' tag, and I had tried all the ones I knew of without success.
-
Assisted dying, the way it is administered can go wrong, this was a big part of the debate.
The administration of lots of things can go wrong. Should we ban everything that can go wrong or should we work out ways to minimise the risks?
In the meantime, many people are condemned to live their last few days/months/years in perpetual pain with no escape. If we treated dogs that way, it would be called cruelty to animals.
-
Assisted dying, the way it is administered can go wrong, this was a big part of the debate.
The administration of lots of things can go wrong. Should we ban everything that can go wrong or should we work out ways to minimise the risks?
Er Jeremy....taking the 'what's few deaths among friends?' tack isn't a good line.
-
Assisted dying, the way it is administered can go wrong, this was a big part of the debate.
The administration of lots of things can go wrong. Should we ban everything that can go wrong or should we work out ways to minimise the risks?
Er Jeremy....taking the 'what's few deaths among friends?' tack isn't a good line.
Do you drive a car? Driving cars can go wrong, sometimes fatally. Shouldn't we ban them or do you take the "what's a few deaths among friends" tack?
What about aeroplanes? surgery? crossing the road? climbing stairs? using vending machines? All these things must be banned because things can go wrong, or would you prefer to take the "what's a few deaths among friends" tack?
-
The object of car driving is not the death of people. I don't see the analogy with assisted suicide.
-
Assisted dying, the way it is administered can go wrong, this was a big part of the debate.
The administration of lots of things can go wrong. Should we ban everything that can go wrong or should we work out ways to minimise the risks?
Er Jeremy....taking the 'what's few deaths among friends?' tack isn't a good line.
Do you drive a car? Driving cars can go wrong, sometimes fatally.
A process which involves killing though always ends up in fatalities.
-
The object of car driving is not the death of people. I don't see the analogy with assisted suicide.
We were talking about the risks of something going wrong i.e. the possibility of an unintended death. In that resect, the comparison is perfectly apt.
-
The object of car driving is not the death of people. I don't see the analogy with assisted suicide.
We were talking about the risks of something going wrong i.e. the possibility of an unintended death. In that resect, the comparison is perfectly apt.
Except the objective here will be death. The comparison is not only not apt, it is fatuous. I am a supporter of assisted suicide but this type of argument does a disservice to trying to win the argument.
-
A process which involves killing though always ends up in fatalities.
Yes, but, in the case of an assisted suicide, somebody actually want to die and, in fact, the death results in that person being released from suffering. In principle, what's to object about that?
In practice, there is a risk that people who don't want to commit suicide get killed — murdered. However, in any activity, the risk of unintended deaths, even murders, argues for safeguards to be taken, not for the activity to be banned.
-
The object of car driving is not the death of people. I don't see the analogy with assisted suicide.
We were talking about the risks of something going wrong i.e. the possibility of an unintended death. In that resect, the comparison is perfectly apt.
Except the objective here will be death.
Actually, the objective is to release people from suffering.
I am a supporter of assisted suicide but this type of argument does a disservice to trying to win the argument.
Why? It was not me who brought up the risk of accidentally or deliberately killing somebody who doesn't want to die, it was Gonners. If you want assisted suicide to become legal — as I do — this is an argument you have to face up to and counter.
-
And you don't counteract arguments by specious analogies. Car driving has a risk of death as a side to it. It does not have the risk of the state assisting in murder. I would suggest the counter argument to the risk is a robust enough process to prevent it.
-
A process which involves killing though always ends up in fatalities.
Yes, but, in the case of an assisted suicide, somebody actually want to die and, in fact, the death results in that person being released from suffering. In principle, what's to object about that?
The safeguards were not acceptable against coercion.
Now if you could give a figure on how many deaths there would be due to coercion..............
Secondly we KNOW there are people who would want to broaden the parameters of this so there isn't a slippery slope argument here.
Thirdly why have palliative care to such a level if there is also a demand for a finance intensive system of assisted suicide.
Fourthly we would have doctors and nurses involved in legally sanctioned killing.
Now, while one has sympathy it comes down to safeguards.
The case for. I suspect was made by people not willing to entertain these and other concerns and in the end never had an answer.
-
Just to point out we already have doctors and nurses involved in legalised killing with both dnrs and switching off life support machines. We also have them involved in illegal killing with overdosing people in suffering with morphine.
-
Just to point out we already have doctors and nurses involved in legalised killing with both dnrs and switching off life support machines. We also have them involved in illegal killing with overdosing people in suffering with morphine.
Contentious. many would say there is a difference to killing and terminating life support......and that is a case which needs to be made.
There is a law against illegal killing with morphine, The key point is about sentencing where mercy and justice can be apportioned dependent on each case.
That seems optimum again one has to make the case that it isn't.
It is not an easy one but the case for is not helped by pleading stupidity or callousness of the opponents.
-
It must come as a shock that this issue is not a religious versus atheists issue (after all we have two archbishops, one in either camp). But also religion is not to ''blame'' for the result.
No? As though it's not witless enough at ordinary times, just look how vile religion's contribution to the "debate" can be:
https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/641721081997471744/photo/1
-
And you don't counteract arguments by specious analogies.
If it was a specious analogy, you'd have a point, but it is not.
The argument in opposition to assisted suicide is that people who do not want to commit suicide might get killed wrongly.
The argument is refuted by pointing out that we do not normally ban things just because there are risks, we try to mitigate the risks. The activities I talked about are examples of us doing that. The goal of the activity is irrelevant in this respect.
I would suggest the counter argument to the risk is a robust enough process to prevent it.
Precisely. I'm pretty sure that is the point I was making.
-
There is a law against illegal killing with morphine
But the doctrine of double effect is a pretty well openly acknowledged means of circumventing that law.
-
https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/641721081997471744/photo/1
Has anyone actually looked at the source of this poster? If you look at the 'Mission/About Us' statement you will find phraseology that is reminiscent of the Shakes, ippys, Sass's, bhs's and others on this board. ;) As such, its not much different from many posters here.
-
Has anyone actually looked at the source of this poster?
It was one of the first things I did, though I feel soiled for having done so.
If you look at the 'Mission/About Us' statement you will find phraseology that is reminiscent of the Shakes, ippys, Sass's, bhs's and others on this board. ;) As such, its not much different from many posters here.
I read the mission statement.
You're going to have to be significantly clearer on how their mission to serve God by denying women's reproductive choices and forcing the terminally ill to die in pain is reminiscent of any of the posters you name.
-
https://twitter.com/rickygervais/status/641721081997471744/photo/1
Has anyone actually looked at the source of this poster? If you look at the 'Mission/About Us' statement you will find phraseology that is reminiscent of the Shakes, ippys, Sass's, bhs's and others on this board. ;) As such, its not much different from many posters here.
What are you suggesting its propaganda?
Its a view that has been expressed by a few Christians. The bitch Mother Teresa said 'Pain and suffering have come into your life, but remember pain, sorrow, suffering are but the kiss of Jesus - a sign that you have come so close to Him that He can kiss you.'
-
What are you suggesting its propaganda?
I suppose it depends on whether posts by the likes of those I mentioned in my post are deemed to be propaganda.
Its a view that has been expressed by a few Christians. The bitch Mother Teresa said 'Pain and suffering have come into your life, but remember pain, sorrow, suffering are but the kiss of Jesus - a sign that you have come so close to Him that He can kiss you.'
And its a view that has been expressed by 'a few' non-Christian non-religious people, jaks. Does that make their opinion any better.
-
You're going to have to be significantly clearer on how their mission to serve God by denying women's reproductive choices and forcing the terminally ill to die in pain is reminiscent of any of the posters you name.
The choice and general form of a lot of the phraseology, Shakes - as I originally said. Dogmatic, refusal to consider contradictory argument; mind you, they don't seem to rely on quite as openly abusive language as some here do.
-
I suppose it depends on whether posts by the likes of those I mentioned in my post are deemed to be propaganda.
Say what, you think Ippy really is a Christian spouting propaganda?
And its a view that has been expressed by 'a few' non-Christian non-religious people, jaks. Does that make their opinion any better.
What 'non-Christian non-religious people' have said 'suffering are but the kiss of Jesus'?
-
You're going to have to be significantly clearer on how their mission to serve God by denying women's reproductive choices and forcing the terminally ill to die in pain is reminiscent of any of the posters you name.
The choice and general form of a lot of the phraseology, Shakes - as I originally said. Dogmatic, refusal to consider contradictory argument; mind you, they don't seem to rely on quite as openly abusive language as some here do.
LOL my irony meter just blew again!
-
The choice and general form of a lot of the phraseology, Shakes - as I originally said.
I realise that this is the triumph of experience over Hope but is there any point in asking you to provide specific examples?
-
What 'non-Christian non-religious people' have said 'suffering are but the kiss of Jesus'?
Hadn't realised that this was even in the 'About Us' piece, jaks.
-
I realise that this is the triumph of experience over Hope but is there any point in asking you to provide specific examples?
OK, Shakes, let's take this example from the 'About Us' page - "Sometimes talking to pro-aborts can be like arguing with a post ... ", phraseology very reminiscent of your own comment on the UK 0 California 1 thread "The case should be self-evident to anybody functioning fully above the neckline", derogatory phraseology that a number of non-religious people (and the occasional religious one) here tend to mirror in their posts. Then, if you take the general tone of the piece, it is pretty dogmatic - not unlike some posts here that categorically state that the naturalistic approach to life is the only possible one.
-
What 'non-Christian non-religious people' have said 'suffering are but the kiss of Jesus'?
Hadn't realised that this was even in the 'About Us' piece, jaks.
I never mentioned an About-Us page but quoted Mother Teresa.
-
I never mentioned an About-Us page but quoted Mother Teresa.
I know, but you did so in the middle of a discussion about the nature of the site's overall phraseology and especially the 'About Us' page.
When you first introduced the quote from Mother Teresa (September 13, 2015, 12:14:23 PM) - which I understand is no more than a summation of the words from the Catholic 'Last Rites' - you were introducing it as an example of 'a view that has been expressed by a few Christians' - (your own words). Interestingly, this was in response to a post that I had made suggesting that the phraseology and 'feel' of the ALL.org 'About Us' page was not dissimilar to some non-Christian, non-religious posters' posts here.
-
not unlike some posts here that categorically state that the naturalistic approach to life is the only possible one.
I've never heard anyone say that.
I certainly have heard many people say that it's the only approach with a self-correcting, testable, shareable methodology which allows us to determine fact from falsity. I've heard people say that because it's true.
-
Just to point out we already have doctors and nurses involved in legalised killing with both dnrs and switching off life support machines. We also have them involved in illegal killing with overdosing people in suffering with morphine.
I am reminded by this that King George V was killed off prematurely by his doctor, Lord Dawson, who felt that an official announcement of the death appearing in the evening newspapers would be undignified and inappropriate to the status of his patient.
To the best of my recollection, Lord Dawson's action resulted in no sanction being taken against him. Legal euthanasia?
George V was the last monarch whose death can be attributed to the actions of someone else.
-
I am reminded by this that King George V was killed off prematurely by his doctor, Lord Dawson, who felt that an official announcement of the death appearing in the evening newspapers would be undignified and inappropriate to the status of his patient.
To the best of my recollection, Lord Dawson's action resulted in no sanction being taken against him. Legal euthanasia?
George V was the last monarch whose death can be attributed to the actions of someone else.
Sigmund Freud was also helped along the way by his doctor who was also a close personal friend, Max Schur. Doubtless there are other examples, but those two are the ones that spring immediately to mind.
-
I would consider helping someone to die if they were terminally ill, in unrelieved agony, and no other course of action was available.
-
I certainly have heard many people say that it's the only approach with a self-correcting, testable, shareable methodology which allows us to determine fact from falsity. I've heard people say that because it's true.
OK, Shakes, let's take a common example and one that has been referred to here recently - Medicine.
Can you tell me how many heart operations are identical replicas of each other? I realise that you haven't used the term replicatible in your list above, but it has been used by others in such a context on a number of occasions.
I appreciate that the principles are the same, but then, that applies to just about any topic one might care to introduce, but can you categorically state that conditions and circumstances are replicated in every single example of heart surgery or does the doctor have to use their own mental abilities and surgical knowledge - which may or may not have been drummed into them at medical school - to tweak the processes involved. In summary, are you saying that every example of heart surgery is a repeatable process or would it not be more correct to say that each operation is a unique event that follows certain guiding principles?
-
I completely and utterly fail to see the relevance.
All I can add to that farrago of irrelevance is that those "guiding principles" are entirely and throughly naturalistic.
-
I completely and utterly fail to see the relevance.
All I can add to that farrago of irrelevance is that those "guiding principles" are entirely and throughly naturalistic.
Another way of saying that the 'naturalistic approach to life is the only possible one'.
Are those principles really 'entirely and throughly naturalistic'? For instance, in Harrowby's example of George V, was the reason purely naturalistic?
-
Another way of saying that the 'naturalistic approach to life is the only possible one'.
If that's how you want to interpret it.
Are those principles really 'entirely and throughly naturalistic'?
Yes, entirely and thoroughly.
For instance, in Harrowby's example of George V, was the reason purely naturalistic?
Yes.
-
I never mentioned an About-Us page but quoted Mother Teresa.
I know, but you did so in the middle of a discussion about the nature of the site's overall phraseology and especially the 'About Us' page.
When you first introduced the quote from Mother Teresa (September 13, 2015, 12:14:23 PM) - which I understand is no more than a summation of the words from the Catholic 'Last Rites' - you were introducing it as an example of 'a view that has been expressed by a few Christians' - (your own words). Interestingly, this was in response to a post that I had made suggesting that the phraseology and 'feel' of the ALL.org 'About Us' page was not dissimilar to some non-Christian, non-religious posters' posts here.
I asked you if you thought it was propaganda and you seemed to question if it came from a Christian.