| 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: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
22 Sep 2005 06:53:53 PM |
|
|
On 22 Sep 2005 09:50:46 -0700,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On a page, a paragraph and the bulk of a second paragraph:
Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level
produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This
means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the
racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one.
Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the
higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a
higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not
lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory
of
the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the
weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born
weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak
and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable
higher development of organic living beings would be
unthinkable.
....Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the
struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or
less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the
female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the
healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a
species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause
of its higher development.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Compare:
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (NY: Oxford University
Press), 352pp. On 2:
....I think 'nature red in tooth and claw' sums up our modern
understanding of natural selection admirably.
Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.
2-pronged role of Darwinian thought in Holocaust's arrival
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125723152.824465.111490%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
I dunno, David. Do you think that just because a Nazi might have publicly
espoused some notion, or at least some vaguely understood notion, that that
idea in its entire is somehow invalidated? Do you believe, for instance,
that Martin Luther's complaints against Rome were all wrong because he was a
rabid anti-Semite?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
11 Oct 2005 10:11:27 AM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On 22 Sep 2005 09:50:46 -0700,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On a page, a paragraph and the bulk of a second paragraph:
Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level
produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This
means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the
racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one.
Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the
higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a
higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not
lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory
of
the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the
weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born
weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak
and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable
higher development of organic living beings would be
unthinkable.
....Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the
struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or
less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the
female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the
healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a
species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause
of its higher development.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Compare:
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (NY: Oxford University
Press), 352pp. On 2:
....I think 'nature red in tooth and claw' sums up our modern
understanding of natural selection admirably.
Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.
2-pronged role of Darwinian thought in Holocaust's arrival
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125723152.824465.111490%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
I dunno, David.
Hitler said it, in _MK_. See about paragraphs 6 and 8 into
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html
Do you think that just because a Nazi might have publicly
espoused some notion, or at least some vaguely understood notion, that that
idea in its entire is somehow invalidated?
No.
Do you believe, for instance,
that Martin Luther's complaints against Rome were all wrong because he was a
rabid anti-Semite?
No.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
14 Oct 2005 06:43:44 PM |
|
|
On 11 Oct 2005 08:11:27 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
On 22 Sep 2005 09:50:46 -0700,
dford3@gl.umbc.edu <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
On a page, a paragraph and the bulk of a second paragraph:
Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level
produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This
means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the
racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one.
Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the
higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a
higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not
lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory
of
the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the
weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born
weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak
and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable
higher development of organic living beings would be
unthinkable.
....Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the
struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or
less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the
female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the
healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a
species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause
of its higher development.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Compare:
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (NY: Oxford University
Press), 352pp. On 2:
....I think 'nature red in tooth and claw' sums up our modern
understanding of natural selection admirably.
Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.
2-pronged role of Darwinian thought in Holocaust's arrival
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125723152.824465.111490%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
I dunno, David.
Hitler said it, in _MK_. See about paragraphs 6 and 8 into
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html
I don't give a ***** what Hitler said, David. It doesn't matter. He was a
sick *****.
Do you think that just because a Nazi might have publicly
espoused some notion, or at least some vaguely understood notion, that that
idea in its entire is somehow invalidated?
No.
So who cares what Hitler thought on evolution? Is archaeology also invalid
because Nazis tried to use it to justify their claism?
Do you believe, for instance,
that Martin Luther's complaints against Rome were all wrong because he was a
rabid anti-Semite?
No.
Well, why not, David? Explain in your words, with as much detail why I
can't call Protestantism a Jew-hating belief system because its founder was
a Jew hater?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
15 Oct 2005 02:35:09 AM |
|
|
AC wrote:
No.
So who cares what Hitler thought on evolution? Is archaeology
also invalid
because Nazis tried to use it to justify their claism?
This is probably the first time and this is the first country in
which people are being taught to realize that, of all the tasks
which we have to face, the noblest and most sacred for mankind
is that each racial species must preserve the purity of the
blood which God has given it.
- A. Hitler
http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/speeches/text/speeches.htm
This is a site with a huge amount of Hitler's own words, writings
and speeches.
With the search utility, we find almost no mentions of evoluton,
and no mention of Darwin at all. Racist crap and god get
mentioned rather a lot.
Ford is a bullshitter.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
22 Sep 2005 09:06:31 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On 22 Sep 2005 <> wrote:
On a page, a paragraph and the bulk of a second paragraph:
Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level
produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This
means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the
racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one.
Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the
higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a
higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not
lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory
of
the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the
weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born
weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak
and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable
higher development of organic living beings would be
unthinkable.
....Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the
struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or
less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the
female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the
healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a
species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause
of its higher development.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Compare:
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (NY: Oxford University
Press), 352pp. On 2:
....I think 'nature red in tooth and claw' sums up our modern
understanding of natural selection admirably.
Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.
2-pronged role of Darwinian thought in Holocaust's arrival
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125723152.824465.111490%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
I dunno, David. Do you think that just because a Nazi might have publicly
espoused some notion, or at least some vaguely understood notion, that that
idea in its entire is somehow invalidated?
No. Also, I agree with the atheists Hitler and Dawkins about one of
their observations.
1941 Hitler & 2003 Dawkins observation re: conflicting religions
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118932846.333778.56450%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Do you believe, for instance,
that Martin Luther's complaints against Rome were all wrong because he was a
rabid anti-Semite?
No.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
22 Sep 2005 11:35:33 PM |
|
|
On 22 Sep 2005 19:06:31 -0700,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
<snip>
Do you believe, for instance,
that Martin Luther's complaints against Rome were all wrong because he was a
rabid anti-Semite?
No.
Why not?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
23 Sep 2005 02:23:55 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On 22 Sep 2005 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
<snip>
Do you believe, for instance,
that Martin Luther's complaints against Rome were all wrong because he was a
rabid anti-Semite?
No.
Why not?
It is my desire to evaluate the validity or invalidity of "Martin
Luther's complaints against Rome" on their own merits.
The fact that "Martin Luther... was a rabid anti-Semite" doesn't impact
one way or the other the validity or invalidity of "Martin Luther's
complaints against Rome."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wakboth" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
24 Sep 2005 04:30:38 AM |
|
|
david ford kirjoitti:
AC wrote:
On 22 Sep 2005 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
<snip>
Do you believe, for instance,
that Martin Luther's complaints against Rome were all wrong because he was a
rabid anti-Semite?
No.
Why not?
It is my desire to evaluate the validity or invalidity of "Martin
Luther's complaints against Rome" on their own merits.
The fact that "Martin Luther... was a rabid anti-Semite" doesn't impact
one way or the other the validity or invalidity of "Martin Luther's
complaints against Rome."
Excellent. So what is the point of your previous blathering about how
Hitler believed in evolution, and how Darwin was this and Haeckel was
that?
-- Wakboth
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
24 Sep 2005 10:34:52 AM |
|
|
On 24 Sep 2005 02:30:38 -0700,
Wakboth <Wakboth2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
david ford kirjoitti:
AC wrote:
On 22 Sep 2005 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
<snip>
Do you believe, for instance,
that Martin Luther's complaints against Rome were all wrong because he was a
rabid anti-Semite?
No.
Why not?
It is my desire to evaluate the validity or invalidity of "Martin
Luther's complaints against Rome" on their own merits.
The fact that "Martin Luther... was a rabid anti-Semite" doesn't impact
one way or the other the validity or invalidity of "Martin Luther's
complaints against Rome."
Excellent. So what is the point of your previous blathering about how
Hitler believed in evolution, and how Darwin was this and Haeckel was
that?
My question exactly.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
25 Sep 2005 10:24:51 PM |
|
|
Wakboth wrote:
david ford kirjoitti:
AC wrote:
On 22 Sep 2005 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
<snip>
Do you believe, for instance,
that Martin Luther's complaints against Rome were all wrong because he was a
rabid anti-Semite?
No.
Why not?
It is my desire to evaluate the validity or invalidity of "Martin
Luther's complaints against Rome" on their own merits.
The fact that "Martin Luther... was a rabid anti-Semite" doesn't impact
one way or the other the validity or invalidity of "Martin Luther's
complaints against Rome."
Excellent. So what is the point of your previous blathering about how
Hitler believed in evolution, and how Darwin was this and Haeckel was
that?
As usual, I have no "point."
Hitler and Haeckel were adherents of atheism.
Hitler and Haeckel were 'social Darwinists.'
Haeckel was Darwin's prophet in Germany, while T.H. Huxley was Darwin's
prophet in England.
Darwin only talks to and through his prophets.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f8trF5cdutnU1%40individual.net
2-pronged role of Darwinian thought in Holocaust's arrival
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125723152.824465.111490%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wakboth" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
26 Sep 2005 11:56:41 AM |
|
|
david ford kirjoitti:
Wakboth wrote:
david ford kirjoitti:
AC wrote:
On 22 Sep 2005 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
<snip>
Do you believe, for instance,
that Martin Luther's complaints against Rome were all wrong because he was a
rabid anti-Semite?
No.
Why not?
It is my desire to evaluate the validity or invalidity of "Martin
Luther's complaints against Rome" on their own merits.
The fact that "Martin Luther... was a rabid anti-Semite" doesn't impact
one way or the other the validity or invalidity of "Martin Luther's
complaints against Rome."
Excellent. So what is the point of your previous blathering about how
Hitler believed in evolution, and how Darwin was this and Haeckel was
that?
As usual, I have no "point."
Then why, for God's sake, do you continue doing so, as seen below? If
you believe (as it seems to me from your comment about the validity of
Luther's complaints) that a person's views don't necessarily derive
from or affect their views on other matters, you should see that it
doesn't affect the validity of ToE one whit if Darwin ate babies for
breakfast, and Hitler began his every meal with a prayer to Huxley.
Hitler and Haeckel were adherents of atheism.
Hitler and Haeckel were 'social Darwinists.'
Haeckel was Darwin's prophet in Germany, while T.H. Huxley was Darwin's
prophet in England.
I cannot help but come to the conclusion that you are consciously
trying to taint ToE and its supporters, as well as atheists, by
association with Hitler and the Nazi atrocities.
-- Wakboth
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
11 Oct 2005 11:04:16 AM |
|
|
Wakboth wrote:
david ford kirjoitti:
Wakboth wrote:
david ford kirjoitti:
AC wrote:
On 22 Sep 2005 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
<snip>
Do you believe, for instance,
that Martin Luther's complaints against Rome were all wrong because he was a
rabid anti-Semite?
No.
Why not?
It is my desire to evaluate the validity or invalidity of "Martin
Luther's complaints against Rome" on their own merits.
The fact that "Martin Luther... was a rabid anti-Semite" doesn't impact
one way or the other the validity or invalidity of "Martin Luther's
complaints against Rome."
Excellent. So what is the point of your previous blathering about how
Hitler believed in evolution, and how Darwin was this and Haeckel was
that?
As usual, I have no "point."
Then why, for God's sake, do you continue doing so, as seen below?
I have my reasons for posting as I post.
Since you can't imagine the motives for me to post as I post, perhaps
you'll conclude that mind/ intelligence wasn't responsible for the
meaning-laden sequences of alphabet characters I've posted.
suppose there was 'an omnipotent, omniscient designer' of computers
and computer software
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348naoF46plv5U1%40individual.net
the panda's 'thumb' argument
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405181220.3a30b3b5%40posting.google.com
Gould and false dichotomy
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403101915.25dc7a6a%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401291823.78264831%40posting.google.com
If
you believe (as it seems to me from your comment about the validity of
Luther's complaints) that a person's views don't necessarily derive
from or affect their views on other matters, you should see that it
doesn't affect the validity of ToE one whit if Darwin ate babies for
breakfast, and Hitler began his every meal with a prayer to Huxley.
"it doesn't affect the validity of ToE one whit if Darwin ate babies
for breakfast"
Agreed.
Also, "a person's views" often "derive from or affect their views on
other matters."
the atheism-adherent Hitler's actions are quite understandable
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127506418.014874.230840%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Hitler and Haeckel were adherents of atheism.
Hitler and Haeckel were 'social Darwinists.'
Haeckel was Darwin's prophet in Germany, while T.H. Huxley was Darwin's
prophet in England.
I cannot help but come to the conclusion that you are consciously
trying to taint ToE and its supporters, as well as atheists, by
association with Hitler and the Nazi atrocities.
Conclude whatever you like.
From
http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/
about Edwin Black's _War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's
Campaign to Create a Master Race_:
They were all bent on breeding a eugenically superior
race, just as agronomists would breed better strains of
corn. The plan was to wipe away the reproductive
capability of the weak and inferior. ....
During the pre-War years, American eugenicists
openly supported Germany's program. ....
One of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute doctors in the
program financed by the Rockefeller Foundation was
Josef Mengele who continued his research in
Auschwitz, making daily eugenic reports on twins.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wakboth" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
16 Oct 2005 06:52:53 AM |
|
|
david ford kirjoitti:
Wakboth wrote:
david ford kirjoitti:
Wakboth wrote:
[snip]
As usual, I have no "point."
Then why, for God's sake, do you continue doing so, as seen below?
I have my reasons for posting as I post.
Since you can't imagine the motives for me to post as I post, perhaps
you'll conclude that mind/ intelligence wasn't responsible for the
meaning-laden sequences of alphabet characters I've posted.
Based on what I've seen of your posting habits, that is probably the
most prudent conclusion.
-- Wakboth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
26 Sep 2005 06:33:08 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Wakboth wrote:
david ford kirjoitti:
AC wrote:
On 22 Sep 2005 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
<snip>
Do you believe, for instance,
that Martin Luther's complaints against Rome were all wrong because he was a
rabid anti-Semite?
No.
Why not?
It is my desire to evaluate the validity or invalidity of "Martin
Luther's complaints against Rome" on their own merits.
The fact that "Martin Luther... was a rabid anti-Semite" doesn't impact
one way or the other the validity or invalidity of "Martin Luther's
complaints against Rome."
Excellent. So what is the point of your previous blathering about how
Hitler believed in evolution, and how Darwin was this and Haeckel was
that?
As usual, I have no "point."
Hitler and Haeckel were adherents of atheism.
I'm sorry, but Hitler was an adherent of Christianity.
Haeckel was not an atheist, but a monist.
Hitler and Haeckel were 'social Darwinists.'
And? "Social" Darwinism is a gross distortion of Darwinism.
What does this have to do with atheism?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth *
* and nothing but the truth; so help me me." *
* --George Burns as God *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
11 Oct 2005 10:36:59 AM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
david ford wrote:
Wakboth wrote:
david ford kirjoitti:
AC wrote:
On 22 Sep 2005 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
<snip>
Do you believe, for instance,
that Martin Luther's complaints against Rome were all wrong because he was a
rabid anti-Semite?
No.
Why not?
It is my desire to evaluate the validity or invalidity of "Martin
Luther's complaints against Rome" on their own merits.
The fact that "Martin Luther... was a rabid anti-Semite" doesn't impact
one way or the other the validity or invalidity of "Martin Luther's
complaints against Rome."
Excellent. So what is the point of your previous blathering about how
Hitler believed in evolution, and how Darwin was this and Haeckel was
that?
As usual, I have no "point."
Hitler and Haeckel were adherents of atheism.
I'm sorry, but Hitler was an adherent of Christianity.
I'm sorry, but Hitler was an adherent of atheism.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1128308336.450775.177530%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler severely persecuted the Catholic and Protestant churches.
Churches resisted Hitler
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1128561942.412167.145530%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Haeckel was not an atheist, but a monist.
I'm sorry, Haeckel was an adherent of atheism.
What's the difference between "an atheist" and "a monist"?
From
http://home.snafu.de/bifff/HVDengl.htm
from the section "Deliberate Falsification of History":
The Social-Darwinist Ernst Haeckel - who has been
published by the leader of the Berlin Free-Religious
parish, Adolph Hoffmann, and widely promoted,
represented in the exhibition by his book "Die
Weltraetsel" (The Riddle of the Universe) - is
frequently mentioned in the exhibition. Nothing is said
however about the fact that his ideas - and those of
other Freethinking and Free-Religious racists -
contributed enormously to the Nazi eugenics and
euthanasia programmes, and hence to the crimes of
Auschwitz; or about tributes paid to him in 1936-37 in
Hauer's magazine Deutscher Glaube as a father of
Nazi policies.
1956 Goldschmidt
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-38m3vrF5o7bk2U1%40individual.net
In his [Haeckel's] older
days he had spent much time upon building and
establishing a phyletic museum which a rich admirer,
Ritter, had endowed. Here he wanted to exhibit
evolution, as he saw it, as a kind of Darwinian shrine for
freethinkers.
Speaking of _The Riddle of the Universe_:
Dobzhansky, 1900 Haeckel ("the law of the persistence of matter and
force; that law knows nothing of a beginning"), and 1987 Dawkins reject
the position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311740.48df353%40posting.google.com
Hitler and Haeckel were 'social Darwinists.'
And? "Social" Darwinism is a gross distortion of Darwinism.
How do you know?
Do you agree with this 1922 Nordau?:
Good and bad.... are subject to the laws of
evolution in society and therefore in a constant
state of flux....
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411271314.4b84581e%40posting.google.com
What does this have to do with atheism?
The social Darwinists Hitler and Haeckel were adherents of atheism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
14 Oct 2005 06:59:21 PM |
|
|
On 11 Oct 2005 08:36:59 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
Hitler severely persecuted the Catholic and Protestant churches.
is that why they turned over the names of converted jews to the nazis?
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
15 Oct 2005 02:39:21 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 11 Oct 2005 08:36:59 -0700, "david ford"
<dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Hitler severely persecuted the Catholic and Protestant
churches.
is that why they turned over the names of converted jews to the
nazis?
In the 1500's religous wars killed 1/4 of al Europe.
Catholics presecuted Protestants and Protestants
returned the favor. The Protestants persecuted
the Catholic churches and the Catholics persecuted
the Protestant churches, leaving mass murders beihind each other.
Does that mean neither side was claiming to be Christian?
Read Hitler's speeches. He was most religious, he was just
making his own kind of church, the Hitler Reformation.
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
23 Sep 2005 12:52:12 AM |
|
|
On 22 Sep 2005 19:06:31 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
AC wrote:
[snip]
Do you believe, for instance,
that Martin Luther's complaints against Rome were all wrong because he was a
rabid anti-Semite?
No.
So you approve of some of the beliefs of a rabid anti-Semite. Do you
agree with Luther that Jews should be murdered, their house and
temples burnt down? What about traditional Catholic teachings
condemning Jews as Deicides?
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
23 Sep 2005 02:32:51 PM |
|
|
Mitchell Coffey wrote:
On 22 Sep 2005 "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
[snip]
Do you believe, for instance,
that Martin Luther's complaints against Rome were all wrong because he was a
rabid anti-Semite?
No.
So you approve of some of the beliefs of a rabid anti-Semite.
Which "beliefs" do you refer to?
To the best of your knowledge, do you "approve of some of the beliefs
of a rabid anti-Semite," specifically, Hitler?
If so, which "beliefs"?
2-pronged role of Darwinian thought in Holocaust's arrival
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125723152.824465.111490%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
I agree with an observation by those adherents of atheism Hitler and
Dawkins regarding conflicting religions.
1941 Hitler & 2003 Dawkins observation re: conflicting religions
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118932846.333778.56450%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Do you
agree with Luther that Jews should be murdered, their house and
temples burnt down?
No.
What about traditional Catholic teachings
condemning Jews as Deicides?
What exactly do these "traditional Catholic teachings" say?
Do you think there was or is a non-material God that came to earth in a
human form that could be killed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: who said, and do you agree with, this? |
26 Sep 2005 12:38:45 AM |
|
|
On 23 Sep 2005 12:32:51 -0700, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
Mitchell Coffey wrote:
On 22 Sep 2005 "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
[snip]
Do you believe, for instance,
that Martin Luther's complaints against Rome were all wrong because he was a
rabid anti-Semite?
No.
So you approve of some of the beliefs of a rabid anti-Semite.
Which "beliefs" do you refer to?
So you disapprove of all of Martin Luther's beliefs.
What about Thomas Jefferson? You approve of any of the beliefs of a
racist?
To the best of your knowledge, do you "approve of some of the beliefs
of a rabid anti-Semite," specifically, Hitler?
If so, which "beliefs"?
Well, we know *you* do. You already express support for several of
his beliefs.
On a serious note, I have never read where you have ever shown
disagreement with antisemitism or to criticize an antisemite for
antisemitism. On the contrary, you're used viscous antisemites as
sources, approvingly, and at one point you would not admit there were
gas chambers in Auschwitz.
It's also indicative of antisemites that they direct questions or
statements to Jews, of a kind that implies, baselessly, that the Jew
is a Nazi.
Also, anyone of the slightest intelligence should understand why
invidious comparison is wrong.
[snip]
Do you
agree with Luther that Jews should be murdered, their house and
temples burnt down?
No.
Well, that's some progress. How do you think Jews should be
suppressed?
What about traditional Catholic teachings
condemning Jews as Deicides?
What exactly do these "traditional Catholic teachings" say?
[snip]
That Jews, as a collectivity, were responsible for the murder of
Christ. This was also a widely taught assertion among many Protestant
churches, so I don't wish to single out the Church of Rome.
But are you really this ignorant of history?
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Kristallnacht |
03 Oct 2005 01:59:40 PM |
|
|
Mitchell Coffey wrote in "Re: who said, and do you agree with, this?":
On 23 Sep 2005 "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Mitchell Coffey wrote:
On 22 Sep 2005 "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC wrote:
[snip]
Do you believe, for instance,
that Martin Luther's complaints against Rome were all wrong because he was a
rabid anti-Semite?
No.
So you approve of some of the beliefs of a rabid anti-Semite.
Which "beliefs" do you refer to?
So you disapprove of all of Martin Luther's beliefs.
"you [df] disapprove of all of Martin Luther's beliefs"
How do you know-- upon what basis do you make this claim?
What about Thomas Jefferson? You approve of any of the beliefs of a
racist?
I believe that 2 + 2 = 4, and think Jefferson thought 2 + 2 = 4.
To the best of your knowledge, do you "approve of some of the beliefs
of a rabid anti-Semite," specifically, Hitler?
If so, which "beliefs"?
Well, we know *you* do.
Who is "we"?
To the best of your knowledge, Mitchell, do you "approve of some of the
beliefs of a rabid anti-Semite," specifically, Hitler?
If so, which "beliefs"?
Draft 2 of a chronology of Darwinian thought and the march to the Final
Solution
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1122434358.640904.162640%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Hitler's human breeding plan using selection + mutations
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124684179.251743.95950%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1124731489.829229.220700%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
2004 Kater:
Himmler, a former chicken farmer..., was ruled by very
strong beliefs regarding the application of breeding
theories to humans-- by way of positive selection for the
"Aryans" and negative selection for their natural enemies,
the Slavs, Gypsies, and Jews.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1126752603.953619.262940%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
Fest on "Social Darwinism in Hitler's thought"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125598958.059080.62950%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Hitler was an adherent of atheism and engaged in homosexual activity
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1128308336.450775.177530%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
2-pronged role of Darwinian thought in Holocaust's arrival
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125723152.824465.111490%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
You already express support for several of
his beliefs.
What "beliefs" do you refer to?
On a serious note, I have never read where you have ever shown
disagreement with antisemitism or to criticize an antisemite for
antisemitism. On the contrary, you're used viscous antisemites as
sources, approvingly, and at one point you would not admit there were
gas chambers in Auschwitz.
I don't recall reading Mitchell criticize the atheism-adherent and
"antisemite" Haeckel "for antisemitism"-- or for anything else.
1986 Robert Jay Lifton, cite in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125598958.059080.62950%40g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Haeckel himself moved in the latter direction when
he embellished his own anti-Semitism with a claim
that Christ's merits derived from the fact that he was
only half Jewish.{dagger} [{dagger}: More
precisely, Christ's true father was, according to
Haeckel, a "Roman officer who had seduced
Mary."36]
Haeckel on murdering the disabled
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a8etdF65smnrU4%40individual.net
Haeckel and Buchner and a Darwinian a-moral climate
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118315214.069039.280490%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
the atheism-adherent Hitler's actions are quite understandable
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127506418.014874.230840%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
It's also indicative of antisemites that they direct questions or
statements to Jews, of a kind that implies, baselessly, that the Jew
is a Nazi.
Do you think the Nazi Hitler did, or didn't, believe he had some Jewish
ancestors?
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/library/donovan/hitler/
on pages numbered 5-6:
1. (b) _Admiration of Pure Noble German Blood,
Contempt of Jewish, Slav and Other Blood_. -- Hitler
has always extolled the superior qualities of pure,
unmixed, and uncorrupted German blood. He admires
the aristocracy. Concurrently he has never ceased
expressing his contempt of the lower classes and his
aversion to admixtures of the blood of other races, of
Jewish blood especially;
_and yet_ -
_Hitler's own Origins are Not Noble Or Beyond
Reproach_. -- Hitler comes from _illiterate peasant
stock_ derived from a mixture of races, no pure German
among them. His father was _illegitimate_, was married
three times, and is said to have been conspicuous for
sexual promiscuity. Hitler's mother was a domestic
servant. It is said that Hitler's father's father was a Jew,
and it is certain that his _godfather was a Jew_; and that
one of his sisters managed a restaurant for Jewish
students in Vienna and another was, for a time, the
mistress of a Jew. Hitler's appearance, when he wore a
long beard during his outcast Vienna days, was said to be
very Jewish. Of these facts he is evidently ashamed.
Unlike Napoleon, he has rejected all his relations.
See also 153-4.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Also, anyone of the slightest intelligence should understand why
invidious comparison is wrong.
Do you agree with this 1922 Max Nordau?:
Good and bad.... are subject to the laws of
evolution in society and therefore in a constant
state of flux....
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411271314.4b84581e%40posting.google.com
What are 5 actions you consider evil/ "wrong"/ bad/
immoral?
Upon what basis/ grounds do you consider those 5 actions
evil/ "wrong"/ bad/ immoral?
Do you think infanticide is evil/ "wrong"?
Do you think bestiality is evil/ "wrong"?
1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814%40posting.google.com
Do you think genocide is evil/ "wrong"?
[snip]
Do you
agree with Luther that Jews should be murdered, their house and
temples burnt down?
No.
Well, that's some progress. How do you think Jews should be
suppressed?
Do you believe I "think Jews should be suppressed"? If 'yes':
upon what basis/ grounds do you believe that?
What about traditional Catholic teachings
condemning Jews as Deicides?
What exactly do these "traditional Catholic teachings" say?
[snip]
That Jews, as a collectivity, were responsible for the murder of
Christ.
Reference?
Does this "collectivity" include:
all of Jesus' apostles?
Jesus' mother, Mary?
Jesus' earthly father, Joseph?
those Jews healed by Jesus?
This was also a widely taught assertion a | | | | | | |
