House of Commons

[Shaker]

The choice and general form of a lot of the phraseology, Shakes - as I originally said.

I realise that this is the triumph of experience over Hope but is there any point in asking you to provide specific examples?

[Hope]

What 'non-Christian non-religious people' have said 'suffering are but the kiss of Jesus'?

Hadn't realised that this was even in the 'About Us' piece, jaks.

[Hope]

I realise that this is the triumph of experience over Hope but is there any point in asking you to provide specific examples?

OK, Shakes, let's take this example from the 'About Us' page - "Sometimes talking to pro-aborts can be like arguing with a post ... ", phraseology very reminiscent of your own comment on the UK 0 California 1 thread "The case should be self-evident to anybody functioning fully above the neckline", derogatory phraseology that a number of non-religious people (and the occasional religious one) here tend to mirror in their posts.  Then, if you take the general tone of the piece, it is pretty dogmatic - not unlike some posts here that categorically state that the naturalistic approach to life is the only possible one.

[jakswan]

What 'non-Christian non-religious people' have said 'suffering are but the kiss of Jesus'?

Hadn't realised that this was even in the 'About Us' piece, jaks.

I never mentioned an About-Us page but quoted Mother Teresa.

[Hope]

I never mentioned an About-Us page but quoted Mother Teresa.

I know, but you did so in the middle of a discussion about the nature of the site's overall phraseology and especially the 'About Us' page.

When you first introduced the quote from Mother Teresa (September 13, 2015, 12:14:23 PM) - which I understand is no more than a summation of the words from the Catholic 'Last Rites' - you were introducing it as an example of 'a view that has been expressed by a few Christians' - (your own words).  Interestingly, this was in response to a post that I had made suggesting that the phraseology and 'feel' of the ALL.org 'About Us' page was not dissimilar to some non-Christian, non-religious posters' posts here.

[Shaker]

not unlike some posts here that categorically state that the naturalistic approach to life is the only possible one.

I've never heard anyone say that.

I certainly have heard many people say that it's the only approach with a self-correcting, testable, shareable methodology which allows us to determine fact from falsity. I've heard people say that because it's true.

[Harrowby Hall]

Just to point out we already have doctors and nurses involved in legalised killing with both dnrs and switching off life support machines. We also have them involved in illegal  killing with overdosing people in suffering with morphine.

I am reminded by this that King George V was killed off prematurely by his doctor, Lord Dawson, who felt that an official announcement of the death appearing in the evening newspapers would be undignified and inappropriate to the status of his patient.

To the best of my recollection, Lord Dawson's action resulted in no sanction being taken against him. Legal euthanasia?

George V was the last monarch whose death can be attributed to the actions of someone else.

[Shaker]

I am reminded by this that King George V was killed off prematurely by his doctor, Lord Dawson, who felt that an official announcement of the death appearing in the evening newspapers would be undignified and inappropriate to the status of his patient.

To the best of my recollection, Lord Dawson's action resulted in no sanction being taken against him. Legal euthanasia?

George V was the last monarch whose death can be attributed to the actions of someone else.

Sigmund Freud was also helped along the way by his doctor who was also a close personal friend, Max Schur. Doubtless there are other examples, but those two are the ones that spring immediately to mind.

[floo]

I would consider helping someone to die if they were terminally ill, in unrelieved agony, and no other course of action was available.

[Hope]

I certainly have heard many people say that it's the only approach with a self-correcting, testable, shareable methodology which allows us to determine fact from falsity. I've heard people say that because it's true.

OK, Shakes, let's take a common example and one that has been referred to here recently - Medicine.

Can you tell me how many heart operations are identical replicas of each other?  I realise that you haven't used the term replicatible in your list above, but it has been used by others in such a context on a number of occasions. 

I appreciate that the principles are the same, but then, that applies to just about any topic one might care to introduce, but can you categorically state that conditions and circumstances are replicated in every single example of heart surgery or does the doctor have to use their own mental abilities and surgical knowledge - which may or may not have been drummed into them at medical school - to tweak the processes involved.  In summary, are you saying that every example of heart surgery is a repeatable process or would it not be more correct to say that each operation is a unique event that follows certain guiding principles? 

[Shaker]

I completely and utterly fail to see the relevance.

All I can add to that farrago of irrelevance is that those "guiding principles" are entirely and throughly naturalistic.

[Hope]

I completely and utterly fail to see the relevance.

All I can add to that farrago of irrelevance is that those "guiding principles" are entirely and throughly naturalistic.

Another way of saying that the 'naturalistic approach to life is the only possible one'.

Are those principles really 'entirely and throughly naturalistic'?  For instance, in Harrowby's example of George V, was the reason purely naturalistic?

[Shaker]

Another way of saying that the 'naturalistic approach to life is the only possible one'.

If that's how you want to interpret it.

Are those principles really 'entirely and throughly naturalistic'?

Yes, entirely and thoroughly.

For instance, in Harrowby's example of George V, was the reason purely naturalistic?

Yes.

[jakswan]

I never mentioned an About-Us page but quoted Mother Teresa.

I know, but you did so in the middle of a discussion about the nature of the site's overall phraseology and especially the 'About Us' page.

When you first introduced the quote from Mother Teresa (September 13, 2015, 12:14:23 PM) - which I understand is no more than a summation of the words from the Catholic 'Last Rites' - you were introducing it as an example of 'a view that has been expressed by a few Christians' - (your own words).  Interestingly, this was in response to a post that I had made suggesting that the phraseology and 'feel' of the ALL.org 'About Us' page was not dissimilar to some non-Christian, non-religious posters' posts here.

I asked you if you thought it was propaganda and you seemed to question if it came from a Christian.