Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jul 2002 19:44:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4780 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> If I backed the wrong horse and/or he doesn't exist (as proven in HHGTTG
> btw) then I have lived my life to the best of my ability for no other reason
> than it was the right thing to do.
Right to whom? To yourself? That's mighty solipsistic of a professed Xtian.
Regardless, Pascal's wager is no validation of faith whatsoever, unless
one already believes and feels like he needs a reason to continue.
> As for taking a hammer to the kids head--let me try it this way...
>
> A fea years back this holistic healing, this 'herbal medicine' was a
> lark--only for the fringe elements of society that believed in it. Some of
> these folks believed in this holistic healing stuff so much that they would
> forego medical treatment and instead opted for natural healing.
>
> Now some real physicians are prescribing some of this herbal remedy to cure
> what ails ya, in conjunction with medical treatment if needed.
Well, quacks are quacks, and in an overwhelming number of cases the
application of herbal treatments has no effect at all, and almost certainly
no causative effect upon the malady in question.
The fantastic site www.skepdic.com deals extensively with bogus medical
practices such as ad hoc herbalism, as does the excellent
www.quackwatch.com. I recommend perusing either of them to get a handle on
why herbalism is 99% nonsense (and here's a hint: it's NOT because of some
big AMA conspiracy...)
> The point is it is a point of arrogance to say that we have the only way of
> doing stuff--that we're right and they that don't believe are somehow wrong
> fringe zealous elements in society.
That is an imprecise analogy. Except in rare and specialized
circumstances, medical treatment is absolutely not a matter of perspective,
and it is the height of credulousness to suggest otherwise.
In any case, you seem to be saying that it's okay for me to bash my kid's
head with a hammer if I believe it's okay. Is that what you're asserting?
If not, please clarify.
Anyway, here's another analogy: Parent X is a schizophrenic who believes
that the only way to save her five young children is to drown them in the
bathtub. Are we, as a society, simply to stand by and let her, because it's
what she believes? Or do we, as a society, identify her monstrously abusive
behavior--whatever the source--as injurious to the children, thereby
justifying our intervention? I would unquestionably say the latter, and we
are therefore forced to ask: how do we distinguish between a schizophrenic
zealot and a non-schizophrenic believer who would nevertheless allow her
children to die of diabetes because it's God's will?
> 'But wait', those out there partaking in this discussion are saying, 'The
> child doesn't make the choice, the parent does.'
>
> And rightly so--the parent is the *legal* guardian. Unless we can say that
> the parent is wrong, incompotent, fanatical, whatever, and take the kids
> away for their own safety, then we, as the outsiders have no right at all to
> step in and refute/dispute their guardianship.
If the parent has accepted the moral responsibility for the child's
well-being, and if the parent through inaction allows the child to die or
suffer needlessly, then the parent--the *legal* guardian--should be held
*legally* accountable regardless of their lofty, God-fearing motives. Let
the parent be a martyr, if he or she believes so strongly.
> Anyway, this thread has to be the biggest thread of all time on Lugnet.
Nah. The Mormon-bashing thread of a while back was up in the 500's.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
