We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » RIP Brittany Maynard (1 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next]
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16276 Posts

Profile of tommy
The language itself is the key to the con -. Nowadays they call it “Neurolinguistics” and 'psycholinguistics' Perception management and all that stuff. “Dying with Dignity” is a neurolinguistic trickery and part of the “New face of Euthanasia”.. Ie The Voluntary Euthanasia Society changed its name to Dignity in Dying, to improve its public image and help re brand itself as a human rights group calling for free choice on all end-of-life decisions.. The Association for Palliative Medicine accused the Voluntary Euthanasia Society of trying to suggest dignity in terminal illness can only be won by euthanasia. It wrote to the Trade and Industry Secretary to oppose the change.

Beware of those advertising wizards who use the term dying with dignity and say things like:

Quote:
On Nov 4, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Again, this case has nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia. You're just derailing the topic.


Mind you they might just be innocent neurolinguistic tricked muggles who don't know an advertisement for Euthanasia when they see one.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
That's ridiculous.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16276 Posts

Profile of tommy
My pleasure extraordinarily superficial.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
Ontario, Canada
2929 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
Quote:
On Nov 7, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
That doesn't mean the same thing as "you're disrespectful." Not showing respect is passive. Being disrespectful is active.


That's a fair distinction to make, Bob. So please allow me to adjust by saying that a problem with your premise in the first place is you said I don't respect your opinion, when in fact I do.

As for the should and must and ought, if we're discussing psychological and emotional pressure, as well as imposing one's opinion on another's freedom of choice, I think the point I've posted is quite valid.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
"Imposing" one's opinion is quite an interesting take.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
Ontario, Canada
2929 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
How do you mean, Lobo? "Should" and "ought" both imply duty and obligation. This article might be helpful to our discussion. I'd like to know what others think.

"Ought is your representation of the attributes that someone (yourself or another) believes you should or ought to possess (i.e., a representation of someone's sense of your duty, obligations, or responsibilities).[4]

The ought self-regulatory system focuses on the presence or absence of negative outcomes"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-discrepancy_theory

Doctors administering euthanasia each have opinions regarding when it "should" or "ought" to be administered and they convey them to those consenting, whether they use the words "should", "ought", "must", or not. How does that factor here? It's connected to the individual's choice. I know from experience one can feel pressured to make a choice to euthanize. Some do so and regret it. That's a big reason vets get owners to sign on the dotted line before the injection is administered. The owner is left holding the bag, the veterinarian considers it a free choice. Perhaps it was. I suppose it was. But what's significant is the outcome, I think. And no one's standing in your shoes but you. No other person has the knowledge of you that you do. But how many weigh the opinions of doctors that way, ie. as an opinion? How many think the doctor does know you better than you do?

Does one feel pressured to conform to the prognosis accompanying a cancer diagnosis? And/or a picture of "death with dignity"? And what is the doctor's role?

Regarding specifically, and just out of curiosity, "should" and "ought": how many consider statements using those words directed at them to be an imposition?
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
Ontario, Canada
2929 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
From the link posted above, this seems relevant to Brittany's condition:

"Another domain of self

In 1999 Charles Carver and associates made a new amendment to the theory by adding the domain of feared self.[8] Unlike the self guides proposed by Higgins which imply an actual or desired (better) self, the feared self is a domain that measures what one does not desire to be. In many cases, this may have a different level of influence in terms of priority on the self than previous domains and self-guides. It is human nature to avoid negative affect before approaching positives."

The following is a key point in our discussion, I think:

"The theory does not propose that individuals are aware of the accessibility or availability of their self-discrepancies. However, it is obvious that both the availability and accessibility can influence social information processing automatically and without awareness.[4] Thus, self-discrepancy theory simulates that the available and accessible negative psychological situations embodied in one’s self-discrepancies can be used to provide meaning to events without being aware of either the discrepancies or their impact on processing."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On Nov 7, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 7, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
That doesn't mean the same thing as "you're disrespectful." Not showing respect is passive. Being disrespectful is active.


That's a fair distinction to make, Bob. So please allow me to adjust by saying that a problem with your premise in the first place is you said I don't respect your opinion, when in fact I do.

As for the should and must and ought, if we're discussing psychological and emotional pressure, as well as imposing one's opinion on another's freedom of choice, I think the point I've posted is quite valid.


I see your point. But I think "should" and "ought" are basically the same. They simply connote a recommendation or suggestion. But they are not commands, whereas I see "must" as an order, not a suggestion.
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
Ontario, Canada
2929 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
Thanks, Bob, but I'm not sure the dictionary agrees with you. Even if it does, technically, I think the self-discrepancies linked to indicate the legitimacy of my concern.
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Merriam Webster's primary definitions appear to:

Quote:
MUST
verbal auxiliary
1
a : be commanded or requested to <you must stop>
b : be urged to : ought by all means to <you must read that book>
2
: be compelled by physical necessity to <one must eat to live> : be required by immediate or future need or purpose to <we must hurry to catch the bus>
3
a : be obliged to : be compelled by social considerations to <I must say you're looking well>
b : be required by law, custom, or moral conscience to <we must obey the rules>...[several secondary meanings follow]


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/must

While "ought" and "should" are alternate meanings, the connotation of the word, to me at least, is more in the nature of a command or a requirement. "Ought" and "should," on the other hand, connote opinions or suggestions.

But, yes, your concern is certainly legitimate.
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
Ontario, Canada
2929 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
Definition of should in English:

modal verb (3rd sing. should)

1Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/should


should verb
to be under necessity or obligation to <you should stop smoking>
Synonyms have (to), must, ought (to), shall, should

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/should
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
I don't think "You should quit smoking" connotes "You have an obligation to quit smoking."
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Nor does "You should quite smoking," connote "You must quite smoking."

The difference is clear, I think, in the following sentence:

Even if you're perfectly healthy, you really should stop smoking. If you have COPD, though, you MUST quit.

If someone says to you, "You should try eating shark meat," does that mean you must? Are you now obligated to eat it?
magicalaurie
View Profile
Inner circle
Ontario, Canada
2929 Posts

Profile of magicalaurie
Tell it to the dictionary and the thesaurus. You quoted Merriam Webster yourself, Bob. Smile

Again, your explanations- Bob, Lobo- haven't addressed the psychological and emotional impacts I've referred to. We're dealing with human beings here. You also haven't addressed, as the dictionary mentioned, the usual critical intention component. You're presenting something different, I think. And I think that's supported by your follow-up about shark meat. Thus, I would suggest the smoking example cited could also refer to someone's submission to addiction. And I think smokers are sensitive to that.

Point of reference...
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On Nov 8, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
Tell it to the dictionary and the thesaurus. You quoted Merriam Webster yourself, Bob. Smile
...



Must I? Or is that just a suggestion? Smile
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On Nov 8, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:


...Again, your explanations- Bob, Lobo- haven't addressed the psychological and emotional impacts I've referred to. We're dealing with human beings here. You also haven't addressed, as the dictionary mentioned, the usual critical intention component. You're presenting something different, I think. And I think that's supported by your follow-up about shark meat. Thus, I would suggest the smoking example cited could also refer to someone's submission to addiction. And I think smokers are sensitive to that.

Point of reference...


I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

But if you're referring to my earlier statement that Ms. Mayard's decision was laudable, I didn't intend that to mean that her choice should encourage others in similar circumstances to do the same thing. I was simply commending her courage to follow through on what I think she honestly believed to be the right thing for her. I think she simply followed the ancient maxim, "To thine own self be true."
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16276 Posts

Profile of tommy
“The co-existence of physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, organ harvesting, and transplantation in modern society sets the stage for the co-joining of these practices. This chapter argues that they are in fact co-joined, in both theory and practice, in what is called thrift-euthanasia. Thrift-euthanasia is not only advocated in theory, but is also conducted today on a national and international scale with impunity.” - Law and Medicine: Current Legal Issues Volume 3 Michael Freeman and Andrew Lewis
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10......result=1

“HOSPITALS in Glasgow's twin city in China sell organs taken illegally from innocent people executed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), campaigners claimed last night.
Ahead of an international conference today in Glasgow about organ harvesting, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee said the illegal practice is rife in Dalian, a city in north east China with which Scotland's largest city has been twinned since 1987.

Delegates attending the event - hosted by Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting (DAFOH) - will hear claims the Chinese regime removes organs from prisoners who are still alive and that wealthy "health tourists" travel to China to buy kidneys and livers available on the black market.

Speakers include, David Matas, a Canadian human rights lawyer who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize last year for exposing China's illegal organ trade.
The victims of China's organ business are said to be mainly people arrested for practising Falun Gong, a spiritual movement banned by the CCP. Falun The CCP claims Falun Gong is a dangerous cult and outlawed it for "illegal activities" in 1999.

Mr Matas is co-author of Bloody Harvest - The Killing of Falun Gong for their Organs, for which he received his Nobel nomination last year. His investigation with David Kilgour, a former Canadian secretary of state for Asia-Pacific, revealed that in addition to using organs from executed prisoners, China has gone to the point of harvesting organs from living "prisoners of conscience".

Mr Matas said that between 2000 and 2005 there were 41,500 transplants carried out in China whereby the only explanation for the sourcing was imprisoned Falun Gong practitioners.

He said: "China acknowledges organs for transplants come overwhelmingly from prisoners. Their claim is that prisoners consent before execution. We concluded the bulk of these prisoners are Falun Gong practitioners who do not consent and have not been sentenced to death."

The sale of human organs is illegal in China but the black market has flourished over the past decade. In 2008, Glasgow Lord Provost Bob Winter led a delegation to Dalian and discussions are currently under way to link schools in the cities.

Yuyu Williamson, a Chinese human rights activist living in Glasgow, said there was evidence organ harvesting is widespread.

A spokesman for Glasgow City Council said: "Illegal organ harvesting is a deplorable practice. Human and civil rights are a fundamental part of the council's outlook and these issues were raised by the Lord Provost when he was in China in 2008."

The Chinese Embassy declined to comment.” - The Scotsman http://web.archive.org/web/2011092412523......30784.jp

Tell that to the dictionary. “Consent” eh.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5044 Posts

Profile of landmark
Just to jump in here. The should/must debate is a bit of a red herring in my opinion and not really that fruitful.

What's important, I think, is the question of the weight that an expert opinion has, and the layperson's ability to evaluate that opinion.

We all have different ways of dealing with that information gap; it's both cultural and individual. When I was a child no one in my family questioned the doctor's opinion. The doctor was the expert. Now, I routinely get a second opinion or do my own research. But that's just me. Sometimes it was useful to do that. Sometimes, I made the wrong decision--following the doctor's advice would have been the smarter thing to do. But the point is we each have a different way of dealing with that issue.

It's the same issue we see in the 96 pages of the climate change thread regarding scientists; it's the same issue we have to deal with when trusting politicians who want to send troops overseas. There are cultural and individual norms that have changed over the years in terms of how much we trust the opinion of another. No one is compelled to trust another however there are strong forces surrounding the individual every day telling us just who to trust and who not to, and it's not always easy to sort that out.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Nov 8, 2014, magicalaurie wrote:
Tell it to the dictionary and the thesaurus. You quoted Merriam Webster yourself, Bob. Smile
.


The definitions have overlap, but that doesn't make them identical.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On Nov 8, 2014, landmark wrote:
Just to jump in here. The should/must debate is a bit of a red herring in my opinion and not really that fruitful.

What's important, I think, is the question of the weight that an expert opinion has, and the layperson's ability to evaluate that opinion.

We all have different ways of dealing with that information gap; it's both cultural and individual. When I was a child no one in my family questioned the doctor's opinion. The doctor was the expert. Now, I routinely get a second opinion or do my own research. But that's just me. Sometimes it was useful to do that. Sometimes, I made the wrong decision--following the doctor's advice would have been the smarter thing to do. But the point is we each have a different way of dealing with that issue.

It's the same issue we see in the 96 pages of the climate change thread regarding scientists; it's the same issue we have to deal with when trusting politicians who want to send troops overseas. There are cultural and individual norms that have changed over the years in terms of how much we trust the opinion of another. No one is compelled to trust another however there are strong forces surrounding the individual every day telling us just who to trust and who not to, and it's not always easy to sort that out.


All true. But Brittany Maynard was already suffering from the effects of the terminal cancer. They were not just a theoretical possibility suggested by doctors. And she certainly sought second, and even third opinions. All of the doctors and experts she consulted with agreed with the prognosis.

But there's no need for me, or anyone else, to speak on her behalf. She did it very eloquently herself:

http://www.people.com/article/brittany-m......n-cancer
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » RIP Brittany Maynard (1 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.29 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL