| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2005 09:19:13 PM |
| Object: |
Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition |
The affidavit extracts below demonstrate the falsity of the old media's
erroneous allegation that 'no one is home' in Terri Schindler Schiavo.
Also, Terri can anticipate and feel pain.
A U.S. judiciary run amok and a shameless American Criminal Liberties
Union are intent on murdering via starvation an innocent/ guiltless and
defenseless woman.
Decency demands that this unjustified, court-imposed death sentence on
Terri Schindler Schiavo be stopped.
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
From
http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html
from the PDF "Affidavit of William Cheshire, Jr., MD 03-23-05":
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DUVALL
Before me this day personally appeared William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.,
who, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I, William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., have personal knowledge of the
facts stated in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I could
and would testify competently thereto under oath. I declare as follows:
I am a neurologist practicing in the State of Florida and am certified
by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. In regard to my
educational background, I received an A.B. in biochemical sciences from
Princeton University, an M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International
University, and an M.D. from West Virginia University. I completed an
internship in internal medicine at West Virginia University, a residency
in neurology and a pain fellowship at the University of North Carolina.
I am also an appointed volunteer with the Florida Statewide Adult
Protective Services team, in which capacity I was called on March 1,
2005, to provide an independent and objective medical review of
allegations of possible abuse, neglect, or exploitation of Ms. Theresa
Marie Schiavo.
Although no one from the Department of Children and Families has
inquired about my personal views about treatment decisions in cases of
persistent vegetative state (PVS), I would like to disclose that I came
into this case with the belief that it can be ethically permissible to
discontinue artificially provided nutrition and hydration for patients
in a persistent vegetative state. Having now reviewed the relevant
facts, having met and observed Ms. Schiavo in person, and having
reflected deeply on the moral and ethical issues, I would like to
explain why I change my mind in regard to this particular case.
.....
Based on my review of extensive medical records documenting Terri's care
over the years, on my personal observation of Terri, and on my
observations of Terri's responses in the many hours of videotapes taken
in 2002, she demonstrates a number of behaviors I believe cast a
reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of PVS. These include:
1. Her behavior is frequently context-specific. For example, her
facial expression brightens and she smiles in response to the voice of
familiar persons such as her parents or her nurse. Her agitation
subsides and her facial demeanor softens when quiet music is played.
When jubilant piano music is played, her face brightens, she lifts her
eyebrows, smiles, and even laughs. Her lateral gaze toward the tape
player is sustained for many minutes. Several times I witnessed Terri
briefly, albeit inconsistently, laugh in response to a humorous comment
someone in the room had made. I did not see her laugh in the absence of
someone else's laughter.
2. Although she does not seem to track or follow visual objects
consistently or for long periods of time, she does fixate her gaze on
colorful objects or human faces for some 15 seconds at a time and
occasionally follows with her eyes at least briefly as these objects
move from side to side. When I first walked into her room, she
immediately turned her head toward me and looked directly at my face.
There was a lot of curiosity or expectation in her expression, and she
maintained eye contact for about half a minute. Later, when she again
looked at me, she brought her lips together as if to pronounce the
letter "O," and although for a moment it appeared that she might be
making an intentional effort to speak, her face then fell blank, and no
words came out.
3. Although I did not hear Terri utter distinct words, she demonstrates
emotional expressivity by her use of a single syllable of vocalizations
such as "ah," making cooing sounds, or by expressing guttural sounds of
annoyance or moaning appropriate to the context of the situation. The
context-specific range and the variability of her vocalizations suggests
at least a reasonable probability of the processing of emotional thought
within her brain. There have been reports of Terri rarely using actual
words specific to her situational context. The July 25, 2003 affidavit
of the speech pathologist Sarah Green Mole, MS, on page 6, reads, "The
records of Mediplex reflect the fact that she has said 'stop' in
apparent response to a medical procedure being done to her." The Adult
Protective Services team has been unable to retrieve those original
medical records in this instance.
4. Although Terri has not consistently followed commands, there
appeared to be some notable exceptions. In the taped examination by Dr.
Hammesfahr from 2002, when asked to close her eyes she began to blink
repeatedly. Although it was unclear whether she squeezed her grip when
asked, she did appear to raise her right leg four times in succession
each time she was asked to do so. Rehabilitation notes from 1991
indicated that she tracked inconsistently, and although she did not
develop a yes/no communication system, did follow some commands
inconsistently and demonstrated good eye contact to family members.
5. There is a remarkable moment in the videotape of the September 3,
2002 examination by Dr. Hammesfahr that seemed to go unnoticed at the
time. At 2:44 p.m., Dr. Hammesfahr had just turned Terri onto her right
side to examine her back with a painful sharp stimulus (a sharp piece of
wood), to which Terri had responded with signs of discomfort. Well
after he ceased applying the stimulus and had returned Terri to a
comfortable position, he says to her parents, "So, we're going to have
to roll her over...." Immediately Terri cries. She vocalizes a crying
sound, "Ugh, ha, ha, ha," presses her eyebrows together, and sadly
grimaces. It is important to note that, at that moment, no one is
touching Terri or causing actual pain. Rather, she appears to
comprehend the meaning of Dr. Hammesfahr's comment and she signals her
_anticipation_ of pain. This response suggests some degree of language
processing and interpretation at the level of the cerebral cortex. It
also suggests that she may be aware of pain beyond what could be
explained by simple reflex withdrawal.
6. According to the definition of PVS published by the American Academy
of Neurology, "persistent vegetative state patients do not have the
capacity to experience pain or suffering. Pain and suffering are
attributes of consciousness requiring cerebral cortical functioning, and
patients who are permanently and completely unconscious cannot
experience these symptoms."^6 And yet, in my review of Terri's medical
records, pain issues keep surfacing. The nurses at Woodside Hospice
told us that she often has pain with menstrual cramps. Menstrual flow
is associated with agitation, repeated or sustained moaning, facial
grimacing, limb posturing, and facial flushing, all of which subside
once she is given ibuprofen. Some of the records document moaning,
crying, and other painful behavior in the setting of urinary tract
infections.
.....
7. To enter the room of Terri Schiavo is nothing like entering the room
of a patient who is comatose or brain-dead or in some neurological sense
no longer there. Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90
minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness,
or volitional behavior, yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the
presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of
some things around her.
As I looked at Terri, and she gazed directly back at me, I asked myself
whether, if I were her attending physician, I could in good conscience
withdraw nutrition and hydration. No, I could not. I could not
withdraw life support if I were asked. I could not withhold
life-sustaining nutrition and hydration from this beautiful lady whose
face brightens in the presence of others.
The neurologic signs are in many ways ambiguous. There is no guarantee
that more sophisticated testing would definitively resolve that
ambiguity to everyone's satisfaction. There would be value, I think, in
obtaining a functional MRI scan if that is possible.
This situation differs fundamentally from end-of-life scenarios where it
is appropriate to withdraw life-sustaining medical interventions that no
longer benefit or are burdensome to patients in the terminal stages of
illness. Terri's feeding tube is not a burden to her. It is not
painful, is not infected, is not eroding her stomach lining or causing
any medical complications. But for the decision to withdraw her feeding
tube, Terri cannot be considered medically terminal. But for the
withdrawal of food and water, she would not die [well, she would not die
now-- everybody dies eventually, sometimes sooner rather than later. We
never know when we will go to meet our Maker. -df].
In summary, Terri [Schindler] Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a
variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous
neurologic diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she
has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and
indicative of a cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful
neurologic consideration, would not be expected in a persistent
vegetative state.
Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of
medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a
minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state. This
distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on
Terri's behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that
she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to
some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgment it would be
wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water.
At the time of this writing, Terri Schiavo, as the result of the
decisions based on what I have argued to be a faulty diagnosis of
persistent vegetative state, has been without food or water for 5 days.
She is thus at risk of death or serious injury unless the provision of
food and water can be restored. Terri Schiavo lacks the capacity to
consent to emergency protective services and must trust others to act on
her behalf. If she were to be transferred to another facility, it would
be medically necessary first to initiate hydration and ensure that her
serum electrolytes are within normal values.
How medicine and society choose to think about Terri [Schindler] Schiavo
will influence what kind of people we will be as we evaluate and respond
to the needs of the most vulnerable people among us. When serious
doubts exist as to whether a cognitively impaired person is or is not
consciously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively resolved,
it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable life.
Respectfully submitted,
William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., M.A., F.A.A.N.
[signature]
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this 23[rd] day of
March, 2005, by William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.
[notary stamp and signature]
======================================================================
articles: livelier ones are by Thomas Sowell and William Kristol. Eric
Cohen's is very thoughtful.
http://www.townhall.com
Cal Thomas: Schiavo case matters in symbol and substance
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adfseF68nkocU1%40individual.net
Justifications for taking of human life?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3aj33dF67kgcuU2%40individual.net
any atheists against Terri Schindler Schiavo's being starved to death?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adrlvF69l60hU1%40individual.net
1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope slide from devaluing some
human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to mass killings
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
ACLU: Legal Terrorists
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/27/195402.shtml
Terri Schindler Schiavo Case
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/16/223430.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
14 Aug 2005 09:53:49 AM |
|
|
catshark wrote:
On 13 Aug 2005 06:43:24 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
catshark wrote:
On 12 Aug 2005 00:20:49 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
You fail to realise that the wellsighted organism had a higher chance
of reproduction at the outset, higher then the badsighted one.
In other words, you can tell ahead of time which is "better" adapted. That
is *specifically* what Ariew and Matthen said was "value-laden".
Tsk . . . bad Nando, *bad* Nando!
You show yourself J. Pieret, you don't understand it, not even a tiny
bit of it.
Yes absolutely I can tell that a black moth is more likely to reproduce
then a white moth in an environment of black trees, evenso one of the
trees it may be covering on from preying birds, may be struck by
lightning, and the black moth killed.
<Sigh> Yes, Nando, we can (at least to some extent and with caveats such as
Ariew and Matthen note). And it has nothing at all to do with "moral
imperatives", which is what you started out saying.
Well I for one am glad you changed your mind that we can tell prior
which is more likely to reproduce, where before you said this was bad,
bad.
As before, there is only one meaning to the word valueladen, which is
as I said.
I'll make a conception of NS that is expressely valueladen, and see how
it contrasts with actual formulation.
First we need a goal of goodness, well let's make that goal optimal
fitness. Now for it to be truly a moral imperative, we must make it so
that decisions are judged by this purpose. So we must conjure up an act
of will on the part of the organisms, and judge their will by this
purpose. Well let's make this act of will a competitive struggle. So
those plants which struggle harder for optimal fitness, are better
morally.
The standard formulation is biased towards the result of optimal
fitness, which bias implies a preference for optimal fitness, so that
serves as the goal of goodness. But what is also needed is an act of
will, and that we may find in the word success, of the term
differential reproductive success. The word success says that it could
have turned out differently, it was probabilistic, and that it turned
out the way it ought. That is the standard meaning of the word success.
And all these valueladen things reinforce each other, mostly through
the bias inherent to the basic formulation of natural selection, so
that in the end through self-identification, we may say that you, as an
organism, have a duty towards optimal fitness, as a correct
interpretation of natural selection theory.
Now you can say we ought not to interpret natural selection this way,
but I rather say darwinists, who'se discipline has a huge racist
heritage, should know better to formulate their theory with bias and
valueladen words.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
14 Aug 2005 06:48:35 PM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124031229.191663.179360@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
catshark wrote:
On 13 Aug 2005 06:43:24 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
catshark wrote:
On 12 Aug 2005 00:20:49 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
You fail to realise that the wellsighted organism had a higher
chance
of reproduction at the outset, higher then the badsighted one.
In other words, you can tell ahead of time which is "better" adapted.
That
is *specifically* what Ariew and Matthen said was "value-laden".
Tsk . . . bad Nando, *bad* Nando!
You show yourself J. Pieret, you don't understand it, not even a tiny
bit of it.
Yes absolutely I can tell that a black moth is more likely to reproduce
then a white moth in an environment of black trees, evenso one of the
trees it may be covering on from preying birds, may be struck by
lightning, and the black moth killed.
<Sigh> Yes, Nando, we can (at least to some extent and with caveats such
as
Ariew and Matthen note). And it has nothing at all to do with "moral
imperatives", which is what you started out saying.
Well I for one am glad you changed your mind that we can tell prior
which is more likely to reproduce, where before you said this was bad,
bad.
As before, there is only one meaning to the word valueladen, which is
as I said.
I'll make a conception of NS that is expressely valueladen, and see how
it contrasts with actual formulation.
First we need a goal of goodness, well let's make that goal optimal
fitness.
But that's neither a specific goal (as in "develop an opposable thumb or
eyesight") nor anything to do with "goodness" (as in morally good as
opposed to evil).
Now for it to be truly a moral imperative, we must make it so
that decisions are judged by this purpose. So we must conjure up an act
of will on the part of the organisms, and judge their will by this
purpose. Well let's make this act of will a competitive struggle.
But an act of will must be a conscious decision, which for the most
part, does not describe a competitive struggle for survival.
So
those plants which struggle harder for optimal fitness, are better
morally.
Hardly.
The standard formulation is biased towards the result of optimal
fitness, which bias implies a preference for optimal fitness, so that
serves as the goal of goodness.
Again, this isn't a specific goal but a numerical prediction.
But what is also needed is an act of
will, and that we may find in the word success, of the term
differential reproductive success. The word success says that it could
have turned out differently, it was probabilistic, and that it turned
out the way it ought.
No "ought." No "it." The overall "they" turned out the way it
was predicted.
at is the standard meaning of the word success.
And all these valueladen things reinforce each other, mostly through
the bias inherent to the basic formulation of natural selection, so
that in the end through self-identification, we may say that you, as an
organism, have a duty towards optimal fitness, as a correct
interpretation of natural selection theory.
Organisms except humans have no duties. And humans have no
duties to scientific theory. The theory is an attempt to describe what is.
No one is bound to pay it the slightest attention in their dailiy lives.
Now you can say we ought not to interpret natural selection this way,
but I rather say darwinists, who'se discipline has a huge racist
heritage, should know better to formulate their theory with bias and
valueladen words.
So you're criticizing the vocabulary, not the concepts? Your language
skills aren't up to it.
Deadrat
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
14 Aug 2005 11:10:57 AM |
|
|
On 14 Aug 2005 07:53:49 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
catshark wrote:
On 13 Aug 2005 06:43:24 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
catshark wrote:
On 12 Aug 2005 00:20:49 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
You fail to realise that the wellsighted organism had a higher chance
of reproduction at the outset, higher then the badsighted one.
In other words, you can tell ahead of time which is "better" adapted. That
is *specifically* what Ariew and Matthen said was "value-laden".
Tsk . . . bad Nando, *bad* Nando!
You show yourself J. Pieret, you don't understand it, not even a tiny
bit of it.
Yes absolutely I can tell that a black moth is more likely to reproduce
then a white moth in an environment of black trees, evenso one of the
trees it may be covering on from preying birds, may be struck by
lightning, and the black moth killed.
<Sigh> Yes, Nando, we can (at least to some extent and with caveats such as
Ariew and Matthen note). And it has nothing at all to do with "moral
imperatives", which is what you started out saying.
Well I for one am glad you changed your mind that we can tell prior
which is more likely to reproduce, where before you said this was bad,
bad.
I was fully aware that sarcasm would be lost on a humorless monomaniac who
is incapable of subtlety. But, then again, neither do I have any illusions
that I will somehow snap you out of your _idee fixe_. I've only responded
to you on the off chance that there is anyone reading this who might
mistake you for someone with a cogent argument. Others will have gotten
it, Nando . . . just as others get the plethora of subjects that elude you.
As before, there is only one meaning to the word valueladen, which is
as I said.
Even *if* language was as simplistic as you are, that raises the question
of why you have engaged in exactly the conduct that Ariew and Matthen said
was "value-laden". Given your claims, why are *you* pushing a version of
natural selection that has "moral imperatives"?
I'll make a conception of NS that is expressely valueladen, and see how
it contrasts with actual formulation.
First we need a goal of goodness, well let's make that goal optimal
fitness. Now for it to be truly a moral imperative, we must make it so
that decisions are judged by this purpose. So we must conjure up an act
of will on the part of the organisms, and judge their will by this
purpose.
Well let's make this act of will a competitive struggle. So
those plants which struggle harder for optimal fitness, are better
morally.
The standard formulation is biased towards the result of optimal
fitness, which bias implies a preference for optimal fitness, so that
serves as the goal of goodness.
GIGO. Besides the fact that the premise is not true, your conclusion
wouldn't follow even if it was. The "implication" is all in your own mind,
which is, as everyone else can see, an unreliable source.
But what is also needed is an act of
will, and that we may find in the word success, of the term
differential reproductive success. The word success says that it could
have turned out differently, it was probabilistic, and that it turned
out the way it ought. That is the standard meaning of the word success.
And all these valueladen things reinforce each other, mostly through
the bias inherent to the basic formulation of natural selection, so
that in the end through self-identification, we may say that you, as an
organism, have a duty towards optimal fitness, as a correct
interpretation of natural selection theory.
Congratualations. This is the weirdest semantic argument I have ever run
across. Do you really think that using the word "success" as a venacular
(did you ever look that word up, Nando?) idiom for increased frequency of
an allele in a population, makes all of evolutionary theory a moral
imperative?
Now you can say we ought not to interpret natural selection this way,
No, Nando, I say that the *only* one who remotely thinks evolutionary
theory *is* interpreted that way is *you*. In short, Nando, you are a
*kook*, someone who holds to completely irrational beliefs in the face of
all contrary evidence.
but I rather say darwinists, who'se discipline has a huge racist
heritage,
The heritage of racism is far longer than the last 150 years and only a
biased person could use the "value-laden" term "huge" for whatever part
science has had in racism.
should know better to formulate their theory with bias and
valueladen words.
Since you use the same "valueladen words" to formulate *your* version,
presumably without any such intent, you complaint is hollow.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The Moral Sense teaches us what is right,
and how to avoid it . . .
-- Mark Twain --
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
10 Aug 2005 06:21:29 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:48:30 +1000, shane <remarcsdNOSPAM@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
catshark wrote:
On 8 Aug 2005 19:27:22 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
See what fault Ariew point out, the goodeyed organism get's killed and
doesn't reproduce, the badeyed organism reproduces, and these events
should fall inside of natural selection.
What the heck is a "badeyed organism"?
I'm not certain of this, but i think his point is:- that the good eyed
organism is supposed to be fitter because it has good eyes, and the bad
eyed organism less fit because it has bad eyes.
If that is what he means, it is, amusingly enough, exactly the
specification of a result by a "value-laden" reference to an optima that
the two philosophers Nando has been going on about said was improper.
Nando won't understand it of course, but he is making the same mistake they
warned about, even though he posits a different outcome than
ultra-adaptionists would.
Nando then says that if
the bad eyed organism re-produces instead of the good eyed organism,
then scientists ignore this result and do not include it in natural
selection.
He obviously fails to realise that conditions exist, where the
effectiveness of eyes has no affect on reproductive success, and also
that occasionaly, time and chance enter into the equation.
Exactly what Darwin said. Nando also appears to be unable to grasp the
fact that, while selection acts on individuals, the result we are
interested in is a change in populations. Individual players frequently
roll winning numbers at the craps table. That does not mean the house
doesn't win in the long run.
But why if this scenario falls inside of natural selection, why would
it be that if both organisms were good eyed, and one reproduces, and
the other doesn't, it would not fall inside of natural selection?
<snip>
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
People who are anti-evolution are working
very hard for some excuse to be against it.
- Charles Townes -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Chez Watt: Hitler's secular religion |
07 Aug 2005 09:22:00 PM |
|
|
The irony of incomprehension:
Do you really think it is possible for mere words to pass throught that
brick wall you have in your head, to keep out criticism of natural
selection theory?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
03 Aug 2005 05:42:21 AM |
|
|
On 2 Aug 2005 21:46:24 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
First I argue that the theory of natural selection is prejudicial for a
long time, and needs to be changed. Then on my own I find a paper
saying so, and yes it appears that these philosphers are correct, the
theory of natural selection is prejudicial.
well, 'philosophers'?? when they put a man on the moon, let me know.
All you Darwinists here have to change your conception of natural
selection.
aw, gee. what's next? you moving on to relativity theory and how value
laden THAT is?
nando reminds me of those books you read about in the back of the 'new
yorker', subsidy published, about how some genius has found the secret
of the universe, and will tell you what it is, for $19.95
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Merrill" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
05 Aug 2005 06:34:23 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 2 Aug 2005 21:46:24 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
First I argue that the theory of natural selection is prejudicial for a
long time, and needs to be changed. Then on my own I find a paper
saying so, and yes it appears that these philosphers are correct, the
theory of natural selection is prejudicial.
well, 'philosophers'?? when they put a man on the moon, let me know.
All you Darwinists here have to change your conception of natural
selection.
aw, gee. what's next? you moving on to relativity theory and how value
laden THAT is?
nando reminds me of those books you read about in the back of the 'new
yorker', subsidy published, about how some genius has found the secret
of the universe, and will tell you what it is, for $19.95
Weren't those ads in Popular Science also? One such adv. turned out to
be how to bronze baby shoes and another turned out to be scientology -
but that was many decades ago.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
05 Aug 2005 08:50:06 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 2 Aug 2005 21:46:24 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
First I argue that the theory of natural selection is prejudicial for a
long time, and needs to be changed. Then on my own I find a paper
saying so, and yes it appears that these philosphers are correct, the
theory of natural selection is prejudicial.
well, 'philosophers'?? when they put a man on the moon, let me know.
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/7923.html
....
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
.
|
|
|
| User: "catshark" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
06 Aug 2005 07:02:07 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 11:50:06 +1000, John Wilkins <j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au>
wrote:
Bob wrote:
On 2 Aug 2005 21:46:24 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
First I argue that the theory of natural selection is prejudicial for a
long time, and needs to be changed. Then on my own I find a paper
saying so, and yes it appears that these philosphers are correct, the
theory of natural selection is prejudicial.
well, 'philosophers'?? when they put a man on the moon, let me know.
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/7923.html
Damn, you're good!
...
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides
- Unseen University Motto -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
03 Aug 2005 08:29:58 AM |
|
|
On 2 Aug 2005 21:46:24 -0700, in talk.origins
"nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com" <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123044384.612289.214870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
First I argue that the theory of natural selection is prejudicial for a
long time, and needs to be changed.
Yes, you argue, but you also ignore evidence.
Then on my own I find a paper
saying so, and yes it appears that these philosphers are correct, the
theory of natural selection is prejudicial.
As Dr. Wilkins told you, he checked with the author of the paper and you
are misrepresenting it. Despite this attempt to get you to understand
your error, you refuse to accept that you misread and are now
misrepresenting the paper.
You charge some ***** that I don't understand the paper, eventhough
clearly I am the one who understood all along that natural selection
was faulty, and brought this paper to people's attention. 150+ years of
faults, and now you blame the messenger really. The context of
Darwinians always talking in terms of "for the good of" and like, the
context of self identification in terms of natural selection, makes the
prejudicially chosen result of natural selection, a valueladen goal as
a moral imperative. We can just straightforwardly explain the rise of
social darwinist pseudoscientific biological racism, by the fact that
the theory of natural selection was prejudicial and pseudoscientific to
begin with.
If you understood how natural selection worked, you wouldn't have made
the rest of the mistakes or held to them.
All you Darwinists here have to change your conception of natural
selection.
No, you have to change your misconception of it.
Now you can choose, between natural selection as a mere logical theorem
of population growth, or my formulation of natural selection as shaping
the population by the event of reproduction.
What does that mean?
Gee, what was once a proud force, is now a shitty logical theorem. My
way of natural selection resulting in population actions is more
appealling I should think, even if it isn't completely worked out.
Since you haven't worked it out, don't understand natural selection,
can't read papers correctly, and cannot correct errors that you have
made when they are pointed out to you, why should we?
One can choose between fitness going up for endangered species, because
the concept of fitness is inherently relative by the logical theorem,
or one can choose for fitness going down for endangered species.
That made no sense.
Stupidity reigned for 150+ years among Darwinists, influential
accomplished reputable genius nobleprize winning scientists. I suggest
it it is better to follow common sense as to what formulation is
correct, then to mindlessly follow the leader again.
People have often let their so-called common sense lead them into
erroneous conclusions. You have done so several times.
Instead of wasting all this time getting science wrong, you could have
spent it learning science instead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
06 Aug 2005 09:46:30 AM |
|
|
As before, there is only one meaning to the word valueladen, I am not
misrepresenting Ariew, I'm just bringing his original conclusion of
valueladen together with other evidence of the theory being valueladen,
so that it may rightly be called a moral imperative.
It's clear that you don't understand the new formulation of natural
selection of the philosphers, the logical theorem. Go learn that, in
stead of wasting my time.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles & Mambo Duckman" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
06 Aug 2005 03:51:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
As before, there is only one meaning to the word valueladen, I am not
misrepresenting Ariew, I'm just bringing his original conclusion of
valueladen together with other evidence of the theory being valueladen,
so that it may rightly be called a moral imperative.
It's clear that you don't understand the new formulation of natural
selection of the philosphers, the logical theorem. Go learn that, in
stead of wasting my time.
"The new formulation of natural selection of the philosphers, the logical
theorem"???
Jesusfuckingchrist, or should I say, Mohammedfuckingchildrapist, you are a
complete moron.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
06 Aug 2005 07:30:04 PM |
|
|
Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:
<snip>
That's just excellent bullying, not like that other guy who "can't"
bully. To be this good, you must have practicised much at home with a
mirror, while dancing the mambo.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
06 Aug 2005 11:33:03 PM |
|
|
On 6 Aug 2005 17:30:04 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:
<snip>
That's just excellent bullying, not like that other guy who "can't"
bully. To be this good, you must have practicised much at home with a
mirror, while dancing the mambo.
AS opposed to being unable to read for comprehension, and trying to set up a
killer argument out of a fallacious appeal to consequences. This poster may
be an unpleasant fellow, but at least he isn't an unpleasant fool.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
01 Aug 2005 09:54:50 AM |
|
|
On 1 Aug 2005 03:26:31 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
catshark wrote:
I don't know these particular authors but it's clear that they weren't
using "value-laden" in the sense Nando thinks.
Gee, in what sense were they using it then? illegitemately
goalbased...and a valueladen one at that...
nando has confused himself...which is not unusual for a fundie.
saying that something is 'dominant' is not necessarily value
laden...unless, according to your religious beliefs, you think it is.
What rubbish, the valueladen goal translates directly into eugenicism
in Darwin's descent of man.
nando thinks eugenics started with darwin?? geez...he's more
historically illiterate than i supposed.
In natural selection the weak die, and the
strong live, how can we make that happen in society as well? The
valueladen goal of optimat fitness seamlessly translated as the goal of
eugenics. I know very well where the racism of darwinist pseudoscience
comes from.
again, shows historical ignorance. racism was present in society long,
long before darwin came on the scence.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ferrous Patella" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
08 Aug 2005 04:21:36 PM |
|
|
news:9usqe15qbo64vk4d9isipmh79hk10cd4vq@4ax.com by catshark:
Like most specialists, some know what they are
doing, some don't.
You might want to qualify that statement a little more.
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
"Nature as God's "reality" show - what a concept!"
--A t.o. poster who wishes to remain anonymous
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
29 Jul 2005 10:57:44 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jul 2005 18:36:49 -0700, in talk.origins
"nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com" <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1122687409.577393.116410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
The evidence that standard formulation of natural selection is
valueladen is in Ariew''s paper. Shut your eyes and say there is no
evidence.
More false claims.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John S. Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
29 Jul 2005 12:38:35 AM |
|
|
wrote:
It is a common opinion among historians that the intellectual climate
of opinion that developed from the Darwinian revolution, occasioned a
man to reinterpret the bible in terms of a single few words of
"natural" law, "the strong should dominate the weak". It is your
delusion that it is only creationists who put the blame to the
darwinist discipline, because as we can all see, you hate creationists
no end.
What. A. Load. Of. *****.
Again all your response consists of is to just mindlessly assert a few
times words to the effect that science is objective.
Below is what you have approved of as objective science by your
mindless standards of objectivity:
"and as natural selection works by and for the good of each being, each
physical and mental endowment will tend to progress towards perfection"
(C. Darwin, Origin of Species)
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
29 Jul 2005 12:50:47 AM |
|
|
Bullying again, the darwinist specialty I believe.
I've seen you actually do take Ariew and Matthen's advise, but you
fudge over their comment of the standard theory being value-laden, it
not being in accord with your agenda.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
29 Jul 2005 05:50:55 PM |
|
|
On 28 Jul 2005 22:50:47 -0700,
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Bullying again, the darwinist specialty I believe.
No one is bullying you. We're just calling your ***** exactly what it
is.
I've seen you actually do take Ariew and Matthen's advise, but you
fudge over their comment of the standard theory being value-laden, it
not being in accord with your agenda.
Blah blah blah. And so goes the incompetent propagandist as he continues
the attempt to foist a fallacious appeal to consequences on us.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
29 Jul 2005 08:43:30 PM |
|
|
If it is not bullying, then what is the reasoned response to Ariew and
Matthen's argument, that standard formulation of natural selection has
a valueladen goal?
There is no reasoned response, there is just intimidation.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
30 Jul 2005 12:22:36 AM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122687810.579750.231510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
If it is not bullying, then what is the reasoned response to Ariew and
Matthen's argument, that standard formulation of natural selection has
a valueladen goal?
There is no reasoned response, there is just intimidation.
The reasoned response is that in context, the word "value-laden" (note
the authors' spelling) refers to imputing to the "optimal" in natural
selection
an interpretation of "best" when all it means is maximizing a number.
Intimidation requires a threat. Neither cogent argument against your
position nor ridicule for your misunderstanding constitutes a threat.
Deadrat
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
29 Jul 2005 06:57:03 PM |
|
|
On 28 Jul 2005 22:50:47 -0700, in talk.origins
"nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com" <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1122616246.909449.53080@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
Bullying again, the darwinist specialty I believe.
Calling you on your lies is not bullying. Telling you that you have made
another claim that is contrary to reality, is merely telling you the
truth. If you feel it is bullying, that is because of your moral
defects, not ours.
I've seen you actually do take Ariew and Matthen's advise, but you
fudge over their comment of the standard theory being value-laden, it
not being in accord with your agenda.
I can tell the difference between values and physical evidence. I can
also tell when people dishonestly make claims about physical evidence to
support their supposed values. You have demonstrated your lack of
integrity, your lies are your own worst enemy.
By the way, it would also be nice if you quoted from the post you were
commenting on, but I guess that would smack too much of honesty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
29 Jul 2005 09:01:07 PM |
|
|
No you can't tell the difference between values and evidence, because
for 150+ years Darwinists have put a valueladen goal into their theory,
thinking it was objectively evidenced.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
30 Jul 2005 12:23:31 AM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1122686697.259066.167920@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No you can't tell the difference between values and evidence, because
for 150+ years Darwinists have put a valueladen goal into their theory,
thinking it was objectively evidenced.
And your evidence is a paper from two philosophers? Read some
biology.
Deadrat
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
29 Jul 2005 09:46:32 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jul 2005 19:01:07 -0700, "nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com"
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote:
No you can't tell the difference between values and evidence, because
for 150+ years Darwinists have put a valueladen goal into their theory,
thinking it was objectively evidenced.
really? those of us who are scientists, but not evolutionary
biologists, haven't seen that.
got proof?
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
29 Jul 2005 10:57:26 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jul 2005 19:01:07 -0700, in talk.origins
"nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com" <nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1122686697.259066.167920@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
No you can't tell the difference between values and evidence, because
for 150+ years Darwinists have put a valueladen goal into their theory,
thinking it was objectively evidenced.
Once again, you misrepresent the theory of evolution and ignore the
facts of evolution. Aren't you tired of repeated those tired lies? Are
you incapable of learning or being honest?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
30 Jul 2005 12:17:21 AM |
|
|
I misrepresent nothing, the theory of natural selection is prejudiced,
as I've been saying for many years, and now some philosophers of
biology are also saying it. And I've exactly showed how it is
prejudiced, how no Darwinist recognizes scenario's of the fittest going
extinct, when they are most likely to go extinct, as natural selection.
Thereby they identify the workings of natural selection with the goal
of the fittest dominating. So far on the evolutionist the argumenation
has been, "science is objective so it can't contain a prejudice".
Vacaous circular reasoning, just like arguing in terms of the standard
formulation of natural selection often results in tautological
circular reasoning.
Oh yeah, and besides vacaous circular reasoning as some kind of
argument, the typical response is also huge amounts of anger for
anybody who dare question the objectivity of Darwinist science. That
attitude of anger for anybody who questions the objectivity of
scientists explains why the fault continues to be in the theory for
150+ years. It also explains much the spread of racist eugenical
darwinism, anybody who stood in it's path being bullied away, like
William Jennings Bryan was.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
| | | | | | |
