FR Research Thread on Terri II: Mae Magouirk

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1380350/posts?page=24#24

Made a link to your shocking document of Hitler's 'innocent mercy death' decree, actual document shown.

I read out the statement to a death troll who was visiting my house [the old mystery quote routine] and asked her, "Does that sound reasonable?"

"Yes it does."

"It was made by Hitler in 1939."

She looked shocked.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Ah clever:

"I'll be! It's against FR policy to side with death."
[your quote of me]

"...or the Iraq war, or shooting an intruder, or calling out the military to kidnap citizens, or..."

Your response. Government-approved killing to save innocent life does not apply to the FR policy. It's an unwritten rule. That would even extend to self defense.

Now as for the military kidnapping citizens, that's an interesting thing to feed in. Very interesting. And, as far as I know, it misrepresents the Bush administration.

[Gondring]

Now as for the military kidnapping citizens, that's an interesting thing to feed in. Very interesting. And, as far as I know, it misrepresents the Bush administration.

I was supporting the Bush administrations (national and Florida) against those FReepers who were bashing them for not kidnapping Mrs. Schiavo.

[Cboldt]

..and grandchild is not on that list, eh?

31-9-1.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the 'Georgia Medical Consent Law.'

31-9-2.
(a) In addition to such other persons as may be authorized and empowered, any one of the following persons is authorized and empowered to consent, either orally or otherwise, to any surgical or medical treatment or procedures not prohibited by law which may be suggested, recommended, prescribed, or directed by a duly licensed physician:

(1) Any adult, for himself, whether by living will or otherwise;

(1.1) Any person authorized to give such consent for the adult under a health care agency complying with Chapter 36 of Title 31, the 'Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care Act';

(2) In the absence or unavailability of a living spouse, any parent, whether an adult or a minor, for his minor child;

(3) Any married person, whether an adult or a minor, for himself and for his spouse;

(4) Any person temporarily standing in loco parentis, whether formally serving or not, for the minor under his care; and any guardian, for his ward;

(5) Any female, regardless of age or marital status, for herself when given in connection with pregnancy, or the prevention thereof, or childbirth;

(6) Upon the inability of any adult to consent for himself and in the absence of any person to consent under paragraphs (2) through (5) of this subsection, the following persons in the following order of priority:

(A) Any adult child for his parents;

(B) Any parent for his adult child;

(C) Any adult for his brother or sister; or

(D) Any grandparent for his grandchild.

Nope. Grandchildren are not specifically listed as having medical power in the absence of a written medical power.

But in this case, the hospital and hospice are covered, because they acted in good faith on the representations of Gaddy. Further, any actions now are taken in accoradance with orders of a court-appointed guardian; so the defaults listed in the statute are no loner operable.

http://georgiamalpractice.com/codes/code-informedconsentlaw.htm

[Sun]

Judge Greer should be in jail, too!!

[Sun]

"Georgia 'Grandma's' life in hands of 3 cardiologists WND

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1380326/posts"

BUMP

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

To Gondring:

Ok. I didn't really want to rehash old disputes here. I'm trying to help bring attention to a reportedly legalized murder attempt here, to bring a spotlight to it, and let Truth win out regardless of where it falls.

And while I doubt I would vote for Jeb in a primary, I would rally behind him in the final race, even to be president.

But since you are tearing up a puny little straw man point, "kidnapping", which I don't recall anyone seriously suggesting in such barbaric terms, here's a blast from the recent past:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1370236/posts?page=26#26

Quote of Mad Mammoth:

"All Jeb has to do is to declare a state of emergency in Pinellas County, send in Florida National Guard troops as the local judicial system has become clearly corrupt in their efforts to murder an innocent woman, take that citizen of Florida into protective custody, place her in the best medical facility available, and direct the doctors to first reconnect the feeding tube and hydrate Terri, then after stablizing her, conduct a full battery of diagnostic tests, including an MRI, and when she is able to make any sort of rudimentary communication (and she will), have Charlie Crist present to see if she can give any information on how she 'collapsed' 15 years ago."

Also, someone else posted that the governor of Florida can suspend any local officer in his state, for a host of reasons, such as threatening to shoot other officers being at the top of the list.

As I said, I would vote for Jeb if he somehow miraculously survives a primary, but since you brought the debate here, I will address it. So you didn't do Jeb much of a favor.

[Gondring]

"It was made by Hitler in 1939."

Using a favorite leftie tactic, eh?

There are some good articles on Fallacy Files about Argumentum ad Nazium

The liberal organization MoveOn is running an anti-Bush television ad contest, and two of its entries compared the President to the Nazi dictator. Retaliating, a conservative columnist turned the analogy back against MoveOn, together with one of its main funders, George Soros, who has himself suggested a similarity between Bush and "the Germans". [...]

Only an historical illiterate would take such analogies seriously.

Remember, Hitler also was a strong advocate for conservation of Germany's natural beauty. Does that mean it's wrong?

No offense meant, but I don't think use of fallacious arguments help conservatism. My feeling is that my beliefs are strong enough to stand on logical merit without resorting to logical fallacies.

[Gondring]

A kidnapping by any other name...

Our system is not a monarchy or dictatorship. The laws in the Schiavo case were made by the legislature. The judiciary judges them. The executive branch carries them out. I don't want to be in a system where one branch can do all--when we have that, such as with an activist judiciary or executive, we have trouble.

Again, it comes back to RESPECTING things. If Jeb had no respect for the law or the courts or the woman's rights, then why should we support his actions? If people won't support this woman's ("Mae") rights in her living will, why should we support the actions?

If indivdual rights were supreme, I don't think Georgia would be having a debate over whether or not to ignore her wishes...the choice should be obvious--in all cases, respect them.

BTW, has anyone recommended her for sainthood yet?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

' "It was made by Hitler in 1939." Using a favorite leftie tactic, eh? '

Not really. It's called truth. I didn't lie one time. The leftie tactic was to immitate Hitler.

"The liberal organization MoveOn is running an anti-Bush television ad contest, and two of its entries compared the President to the Nazi dictator."

The Left always does that. They accuse the Right of being everything they are.

"Retaliating, a conservative columnist turned the analogy back against MoveOn, together with one of its main funders, George Soros, who has himself suggested a similarity between Bush and "the Germans". [...] Only an historical illiterate would take such analogies seriously."

You were very clever the way you weaved a conservative into that without actually saying how the conservative lied. Very interesting.

"Remember, Hitler also was a strong advocate for conservation of Germany's natural beauty. Does that mean it's wrong?"

Hitler was an enviro-wacko. Many of the nazis were even vegetarians. I guess that makes them 'right wing', and it is that dishonest for me to say that they are more like the left?

"No offense meant, but I don't think use of fallacious arguments help conservatism."

You are dishonest to insinuate that I was 'fallacious'. Oh I do think I found one here.

"My feeling is that my beliefs are strong enough to stand on logical merit without resorting to logical fallacies."

Your beliefs? You seem to believe in stirring up trouble and throwing the word 'fallacy' around at inaccurate times, best I can tell. It's been an interesting conversation.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"Our system is not a monarchy or dictatorship. The laws in the Schiavo case were made by the legislature. The judiciary judges them. The executive branch carries them out."

If the judiciary disregards the legislature and calls the shots, the executive merely a lacky who carries out the judiciary's dictates, that would be a totalitarian regime, or as Jefferson called it, an 'oligarchy'.

[the808bass]

But in this case, the hospital and hospice are covered, because they acted in good faith on the representations of Gaddy. Further, any actions now are taken in accoradance with orders of a court-appointed guardian; so the defaults listed in the statute are no loner operable.

They might have some HIPAA problems as they did not (as I understand it) have the right to release health or medical information to her, especially the information that her sister and brother were going to have the feeding tube inserted. I am presuming that they did so, of course, but I believe it's a logical presumption on the face.

[the808bass]

One more time (with the pronouns partially explained this time)

They [the hospital and hospice] might have some HIPAA problems as they did not (as I understand it) have the right to release health or medical information to her [the granddaughter], especially the information that her [Mae] sister and brother were going to have the feeding tube inserted. I am presuming that they [the hospice] did so, of course, but I believe it's a logical presumption on the face.

The fact that the hospice and hospital did not require presentation of some paperwork showing the granddaughter's Medical POA probably exposes them somewhat as well. Just my $0.02

[djreece]

Thank you for digging that up.

[Gondring]

Exactly.

[Gondring]

You were very clever the way you weaved a conservative into that without actually saying how the conservative lied. Very interesting.

Uh, read again. I didn't write it--I was quoting. But besides, I don't think the conservative lied at all...that's not the implication I read in it.

Hitler was an enviro-wacko. Many of the nazis were even vegetarians. I guess that makes them 'right wing', and it is that dishonest for me to say that they are more like the left?

No, it would be very honest to describe them as they were--socialists. They were far left...yet the point is that they also had some NON-left tendencies, and Guilt by Association is not a very effective or honest debate technique.

You seem to believe in stirring up trouble and throwing the word 'fallacy' around at inaccurate times, best I can tell.

Are you missing the point that the technique is a Syllogistic Fallacy? I'm using the word "fallacy" advisedly--in its technical sense. The argument presented was illogical...it was fallacious...it was improperly constructed...not valid...how much clearer can I say it? I am not "stirring up trouble" when the trouble was initiated by use of an argument that would fail a quiz at about the third week of an introductory logic course.

[Gondring]

BTW, the great Conservative Icon Jesse Jackson was a big supporter of the Schindlers, like you. I'm sure we should discount you just because you shared views on something.

Do you understand why Guilt By Association is not a valid demonstration that two things are similar?

[mother22wife21]

Great News, see eeevil conservative's post on the main thread!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1379016/posts?page=1451#1451

[supercat]

' "It was made by Hitler in 1939." Using a favorite leftie tactic, eh? '

Not really. It's called truth. I didn't lie one time. The leftie tactic was to immitate Hitler.

The general approach of using agreement with quotes to imply guilt by association is fallacious. Suppose, for example, that I were to offer you the quotation "Architectural drawings should be detailed, but uncluttered; detail should distract neither by its presence nor its absense". If you agreed with that, and it turned out Hitler said it(*) would that imply that you agreed with Hitler on any broader issues?

(*) Note: in fact I just made it up, but Hitler did do some architectural drawing and might have easily said something non-controversial about it

I do think that drawing analogies via quotation can in some cases be meaningful, but only insofar as it should raise caution flags. I would not use parallel quotations to impugn people's character, except insofar as the people in question are clearly aware of the parallels and show no intention of avoiding the clear dangers therein.

[pc93]

Mae Magouirk safe for now. See Tekgnosis for further details.

Tell the Media to report the REAL Schiavo polls!

http://capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/?alertid=7351686&type=ME

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/4/emw226586.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/prweb/20050408/bs_prweb/prweb226586_3

My account, etc. of Terri Schindler's Funeral Mass:

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com