Posted on 03/29/2005 8:58:34 AM PST by Long Cut
We, the Witness Protection Program For Freepers, aka the Wild Turkeys, aka the Coalition of the Sane, have through mutual discussion and rigourous thought, determined that:
1. The discussion threads regarding Terri Schiavo (hereafter referred to as "TS") have become too full of innuendo, rumormongering, hyperbole, hysteria, namecalling, paranoia, and general poor behavior to warrant participation.
2. Said threads have degenerated into "echo chambers", wherein the same, common thoughts are continually posted again and again, and the same old disreputable, unconfirmed and/or false urban myths are propagated.
3. Anyone who joins in said theads with alternative viewpoints to the most extreme posts are routinely driven away with slander, accusations, and vile namecalling.
4. No data or evidence contrary to the "prevailing opinions" are accepted, considered, or discussed; and in fact are rejected outright in most instances.
5. That the continued calls for armed insurrection, military or paramilitary involvement, impeachements of politicians and judges, and death threats are embarassing, stupid, shortsighted, doomed to failure, and contrary to most if not all conservative thought prior to this case, as well as damaging in the extreme to FR and the conservative movement as a whole.
6. That such emotional, hyperbolic, and propaganda-driven hysteria is in fact contrary to all conservatives USED to stand for.
7. That the holding up of swastika and other Nazi imagery towards the police and the Bushes, the use of children as political props, and the disruption of the peace at the Woodside Hospice can only reflect badly on conservatives in general, and should be discouraged.
8. That the pursuit of this issue to the exclusion of all others by the GOP has damaged, perhaps beyond repair, the pursuit of other important issues as well as the reputation of the GOP, FR, and conservatism.
The WPPFF is NOT of one mind as to the case of TS or its correct outcome. In fact, wide disagreement exists within our little group. However, we are united in our wish that reason and sanity be respected in the discussion, as well as the rights of all parties involved or participating. We wish to discuss this as adults and intellectuals, as conservatives and as FRiends, not as children screaming past each other on some playground of hysteria. We wish for facts and evidence to be provided, discussed reasonably, and considered fairly.
We reject all accusations of Naziism, "death cultism", or other slander as methods of debate. We reject the practice of "spamming" multiple threads, of posting unending vanities, and the posting of propaganda and calls for violence. We reject, in fact, all unseemly and childish behavior which has come to characterize this case on FR.
We DO invite others to come and reasonably discuss the issue. We have no problem with FReepers who wish to debate in a rational and fair manner, and with due respect for their fellow FReepers. We have NO problem with those whose views are formed by religion; however we reject "preaching" or "being beaten with a Bible" as legitemite debate tactics. Not all of us are Believers, and such tactics only cheapen the source.
If a FReeper finds this an acceptable meansd to discuss this and other issues, they are welcome to join in and participate. Those who find pleasure in attacks, flame-baiting, slander, stalking, and personal atacks will be ignored, and their egos will go unfed.
We assume this thread to be a zone of sanity in an overheated atmosphere. Thus, a general amnesty is in effect. If posters conduct themselves within the guidlines above, we will be happy to discuss and debate with you. If a poster wishes to apologize for past slips of the tongue, or for possible "over-the-top" statements to another, it will be graciously accepted, and your company welcome.
Please bring a sense of humor; we feel that too many have been taking themselves too seriously lately.
Let the discussion begin!
Signed,
The WPPFF, aka The Wild Turkeys, aka the Coalition of the Sane.
Why do accuse mountaineer of "putting this woman to death"?
Lazy! LOL
I didn't expect you to, I just didn't want to post below yours because people seem to be arguing and won't "hear" my lament :-)
Actually, since I made that post, I did find Terry's comments about a theocracy and in it was in 1993; I'd thought it was Sunday night.
But I found another article about how the pro life movement as led by Terry don't even want people to have Living Wills and don't think people should honor them. Whew.
Between Congress and the Terry's of the world, I just want everyone to butt the heck out. How's that for a technical explanation of my stance on this? hehehe
I think you know I didn't do that.
But if it helps to clarify, I meant "comfortable with this woman being put to death".
The weather is incredible. Sunday was the warmest it's been since I got here, 74 degrees. Then cooled down overnight, now I'm purple all over, so I need to go and sit in the sun to warm up. i had no idea how pretty it is here. Ahhh, the Valley of Fire was gorgeous.
That's what he said in 1993.
What he said the other day was along the lines of "Evangelicals put the Republicans in office, and if they don't do what we say - if Terri dies - there will be hell to pay."
Thank you.
:)
Why haven't the residents of Florida raised constitutional challenges between the years of 2003 and 2005, when they haven't been able to hide from the Schiavo case?
Here's my first-draft solution to that dilemna:
First, living wills should be considered null and void on the basis that there is no way to know what one really wants until they are actually in that position.
Second, a person should be free to refuse any treatment, if their will can be established beyond any doubt. In the case of refusing a treatment where such a choice could reasonably be considered life-or-death, it should be recorded in either signed or otherwise recorded form with affidavits signed by three unrelated adult witnesses (the standard for capital punishment in Texas is my reference here).
Third, if a person is not capable of expressing their will, no reasonable treatment on which his life is dependent should be refused or denied to him under any circumstances.
I'm sure there'll be holes in this, it's a first draft. But I think it will help to get the idea, in preserving the right to life while also retaining the other rights of free men.
The more I think about it, the more I find the very concept of a "living will" to be repulsive, with little purpose other than to be an instrument for justifying euthanasia. It also makes sense, that the least questioned, most generally accepted element in this entire equation is also the most insidious. It seems innocuous, but almost all scenarios in which a person is unjustly put to death depend on a living will OR (especially important) the absence thereof having legal weight, for the absence case is being defined towards death.
I know Florida doesn't have its act together in a lot of ways, but I'm guessing they are way ahead of most of us when it comes to end of life issues.
I'm not lazy, I just know how to delegate. :)
It's definitely bad legislation. I would still like to see someone explain why it doesn't contradict the Florida Constitution Article 1 Section 2.
See my post above the one I am replying to for my first-draft idea of the just way to handle these complex situations.
Oh, my gosh. Thank you!
I'd found the theocracy comments and had thought they were made Sunday night. What I had NOT found was what he said was about the hell to pay comment.
I'm saving it so I don't go through this exercise again :-)
I've been to the valley of fire. There is no other beautiful place on earth than the dessert in spring. I'm sooooooo jealous.
So all of this is just a television spectacle fueled by Jackson and the media, that doesn't have ANYTHING to do with saving ANYONE'S life? We are so easily duped, aren't we? Terri is still going to die, anyway. May she rest in peace.
My version of his comments the other day is a paraphrase, but he most definitely said "if Terri dies, there will be hell to pay."
Hear, hear!
"First, living wills should be considered null and void on the basis that there is no way to know what one really wants until they are actually in that position.
"
I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. I have a living will, and I know exactly what I would want in that position. I've actually been in a coma. Fortunately I woke up. My living will provides a long enough time after being in a coma before it comes into effect.
But, here's the deal: Had I not woken from that coma, I would have known nothing about it. When I did wake from that coma, I knew nothing about it.
Don't presume to tell others what they know or do not know about their own wishes. That kind of nannyism is not wanted.
If she doesn't, it has to do with using someone as a political football against their will.
But it becomes more apparent that the objections of the "pro-Terri" forces have as much to do with the laws under which her fate was decided as they do with the decisions themselves - very few of them are willing to step up and say that Terri's feeding tube should be removed if her wishes in that regard were clear.
How did I miss this!? Pass the popcorn!
I remember freepers reporting that, but couldn't find the comments; I'll keep in mind it's a paraphrase.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.