Youth in Asia

[Phred]

All right, let's go the other way.

 

Euthanasia. We can all imagine circumstances in which it would be appropriate for someone, or ourselves, to prefer to end our lives. I've created a living will in which I specify exactly what should happen should I fall into a vegetative state with no hope of recovery. Terri Shiavo is the poster child for this... but, instead of allowing her the dignity of ending her life, our society starved her to death. If she could have felt pain that would have been horrible.

 

There are people who are clearly gone from this earth in all but flesh. Is it worth the cost in resources to keep their bodies alive?

 

Thoughts?

[Elaine]

:lurk5: This should be interesting.;)

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Both my parents have told me that they would prefer not to remain in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery. I will honor that. I feel the same way.

 

However, I would not like to judge or condemn someone who chooses differently.

 

There are other euthanasia scenarios that I would be adamantly opposed to.

[Sara R]

When I was a teenager, I saw someone type "youth in asia" into the computer catalog. He was then was confused that nothing came up.

 

That is all.

 

The last thread got deleted because it was "intentionally inflammatory and had nothing to do with home education." Why are you bringing up another thread?

[beansprouts]

All right, let's go the other way.

 

Euthanasia. We can all imagine circumstances in which it would be appropriate for someone, or ourselves, to prefer to end our lives. I've created a living will in which I specify exactly what should happen should I fall into a vegetative state with no hope of recovery. Terri Shiavo is the poster child for this... but, instead of allowing her the dignity of ending her life, our society starved her to death. If she could have felt pain that would have been horrible.

 

There are people who are clearly gone from this earth in all but flesh. Is it worth the cost in resources to keep their bodies alive?

 

Thoughts?

 

I don't think it is clear at all what Terri would have wanted. I think it is pure arrogance to judge any life as "not worth living". Where does this end?

 

Your last sentance is intriguing though. You said "gone... in all but flesh"? I know this can't be an acknowledgement from you that we are more than flesh ;) Therefore if flesh is all we have, and the alternative is complete nothingness, wouldn't it be better to hold on to life in any form for as long as we can?

[GraceinMD]

Is it worth the cost in resources to keep their bodies alive?

 

Well, I'm expecting that this thread will be deleted (too), but here goes (a brief set of thoughts, as I have a meeting to get to):

 

You raise the issue of resources, but that is only ONE of the facets that enters into play. The four main issues (imo) are as follows:

 

PERSONHOOD

What is a person? Would that I could link to my previous post (from the deleted thread) - is there a life unworthy of living (the Nazi "Leben Unlebenswert")? People generally decide this based on the ability of a person to function: physically, mentally, 'usefully'. That is, people say things like, "I wouldn't want to live if I couldn't play tennis," or "I wouldn't want to live if I didn't know my family," or "That person isn't contributing to society, and they shouldn't, therefore, live."

This is where Peter Singer's thoughts come into play on the one hand: he says there are ethically-relevant characteristics to what makes a person a person. (I can reiterate them if you didn't see the other post.)

One must ask oneself the following:

-Does one earn a right to remain alive by his ability to perform certain tasks or enjoy certain experiences?

-Is there a “minimum standard†for someone to keep living?

-Is there a functional level (or ‘quality of life’) below which (someone else’s) life is not worth living?

 

AUTONOMY / SELF-DETERMINATION

[SusanG]

When I was a teenager, I saw someone type "youth in asia" into the computer catalog. He was then was confused that nothing came up.

 

That is all.

 

The last thread got deleted because it was "intentionally inflammatory and had nothing to do with home education." Why are you bringing up another thread?

 

 

I was shocked to log on today and find the abortion thread gone. I read up to page 10 or so last night and found the discussion thought-provoking, constructive, and rather civil, given the subject matter. Moreover, I thought Phred's original post in the thread to be worded very well so as not to be inflammatory. It's a shame that such issues cannot be discussed on this "general" board without escalating and being deleted. I regret that I missed out on reading the last pages of the discussion, and I think it's a shame that the Powers That Be saw fit to delete it, rather than simply locking it, if they felt things got too heated. We're all big boys and girls here, and it's a shame we can't act, and be treated, as such.

[beansprouts]

Well, I'm expecting that this thread will be deleted (too), but here goes (a brief set of thoughts, as I have a meeting to get to):

 

 

I have to go too. I hope you all "play nice" this time so I don't miss out on another interesting thread ;)

[GraceinMD]

(Hit enter too soon or something!)

 

AUTONOMY / SELF-DETERMINATION

Often there is some notion that loss of dignity is what someone is trying to avoid; we feel that people should be allowed to never have to be "undignified." For example, about 2/3 of the pts in Oregon who sought physician-assisted suicide cited concerns about loss of control and loss of autonomy (not pain). In this case, it’s not that they don’t believe that they are human (see PERSONHOOD, previous post), but that they don’t want what life has for them.

We may all think that some conditions are undignified or unacceptable:

being blind or deaf

being paralyzed

having a colostomy bag

having impaired short-term memory

Should these people be allowed to choose their time of death, with no restriction by their loved ones or by government? Well, you might say yes, but I think you have to (as always) take things to their logical conclusions:

What about if your 20 year old daughter just broke up with her boyfriend and is distraught? Should she be allowed (legally) to choose to end her life?

 

The other interesting fact is that research consistently shows good research about what is called the “disability paradox” where chronically disabled patients consistently rate their health and quality of life as better than they would have expected. Also, healthy people mispredict the (negative) emotional impact that chronic illness and disability will have on their lives. In other words, they believe that a disability will have a much greater negative impact on their lives than it actually does.

 

So maybe we can’t really TELL what we would want. Maybe we can’t TELL when our own QOL would be unacceptable, and what seems unacceptably undignified to us NOW would not be so bad, given the alternative….

 

It’s almost as though “dignity” trumps “life,” and we think that the primary goal is to exercise our autonomy right up to the point where our autonomy disappears.

 

 

So, is a life without absolute autonomy not worth living? Should society have a say, or is this completely a personal decision?

 

OK, time for a new post - and Issue #3.

[mamao32001]

Is there a reason why we are encripting this?????

[GraceinMD]

It is very hard to define "futile care," at least in some cases. One definition is a “clinical action serving no useful purpose in attaining a specified goal.†But of course, what are the ‘specified goals’?

 

Maybe it’s the bridge that gets you from “everything that can be done†to “everything that should be done.â€

 

The problem here is that doctors are very bad at determining when life will end. Hospice studies show that doctors (for example) predict that someone will have 6 months left ... and then they die the next day.

 

Of course, we would all recognize a point where modern medicine can’t achieve a cure – and we need to sort how to tell if a treatment prolongs life, or prolongs the dying process. I don't think that can be legislated. When I, as a geriatrician who deals with dying patients more than most, am unsure when someone with (say) advanced dementia will die, how is it that society thinks a politician somewhere should be allowed to make a determination about how I practice? Or (back to the "on demand" concept) why should I be expected to offer a service that I can't possibly know is justified (sorry - typing fast and possibly unclearly)? Why NOT make sure that someone has a peaceful and 'dignified' death at a natural time - as opposed to euthanizing them?

[Amy loves Bud]

It's a shame that such issues cannot be discussed on this "general" board without escalating and being deleted. I regret that I missed out on reading the last pages of the discussion, and I think it's a shame that the Powers That Be saw fit to delete it, rather than simply locking it, if they felt things got too heated. We're all big boys and girls here, and it's a shame we can't act, and be treated, as such.

 

Well, the board owner has a standard that she hopes to maintain here. It's her board, and therefore when I come here I try to abide by her wishes. If she wants that discussion gone, I respect that. Same as if I were at your house and you asked me to refrain from discussing a subject, I would respect your wishes because it is your home, and you would owe me no explanation.

[GraceinMD]

30% of Medicare funds are spent in the last year of life. This figure has not changed in 30 years, so it's not as though we're dipping deeper because of our advanced technology / longevity.

 

We could, of course, reduce expenses, by not treating people at the end of their lives - but (see Issue #3), it’s difficult to know when it IS the end. (Of course, she says waggishly, we could just take THAT to its logical conclusion and save all Medicare money by just killing people as they enroll!)

 

Seriously, though, I think that "checkbook euthanasia" is not that far-fetched of a concept. Sadly, it also wasn't that long ago that it was practiced in Western Europe on a fairly large scale - initial justification for some of the euthanasia practiced by the Nazis was, in fact, cost-based. (For example, one poster showed an attendant next to a disabled person - with the caption: This genetically-ill individual costs society approximately 60,000 Reichsmarks in his lifetime. Countrymen, this is your money!)

 

I find that actually repulsive, but some human rights leaders have come to the conclusion that resource utilization choices could be based on categories of a person’s place in society or his or her function - and that, of course, takes you right back to Issue #1 (Personhood).

[SusanG]

Well, the board owner has a standard that she hopes to maintain here. It's her board, and therefore when I come here I try to abide by her wishes. If she wants that discussion gone, I respect that.

 

Obviously, the board owners can do as they wish. I was simply stating my opinion that it's a shame the POTB feel the way they do.

 

 

Same as if I were at your house and you asked me to refrain from discussing a subject, I would respect your wishes because it is your home, and you would owe me no explanation.

 

Perhaps that's why I have trouble understanding deleted threads. There is no subject that would not be open for discussion in my home.

[Jugglin'5]

Well, Grace, I wanted to rep you but it says I have to spread it around. Anyway, great posts!

 

Phred said:

If she could have felt pain that would have been horrible.

 

This is itself debatable. There have been people who have recovered from a "permanent vegetative state", who were quite aware.

[nancypants]

I was shocked to log on today and find the abortion thread gone. I read up to page 10 or so last night and found the discussion thought-provoking, constructive, and rather civil, given the subject matter. Moreover, I thought Phred's original post in the thread to be worded very well so as not to be inflammatory. It's a shame that such issues cannot be discussed on this "general" board without escalating and being deleted. I regret that I missed out on reading the last pages of the discussion, and I think it's a shame that the Powers That Be saw fit to delete it, rather than simply locking it, if they felt things got too heated. We're all big boys and girls here, and it's a shame we can't act, and be treated, as such.

 

It's probably because Phred very rarely participates in any thread that is not controversial and I've never seen a thread started by him that wasn't intentionally controversial. He loves controversy and is more interested in seeing a bunch of ladies get their nighties in a knot than he is about actual dialogue. I've found this to be true in his rather quick descent into the ridiculous and the obnoxious (suggesting that human embryos are equal to hemorrhoids is really and truly inflammatory... just ask anyone who has suffered a miscarriage) and he quite frequently (not always) is rather rude. I love conversing with people of different view points, especially those on this board who participate in other ways on the board. I for one was glad to see his post gone and I hope this one goes away too. It's not that I don't appreciate a good dialogue when it comes to differences whether religious, moral, scientific, political, etc.... nothing could be further from the truth. But I (personally) really can't stand it when someone makes it clear through the kinds of threads they routinely start and participate in (to the exclusion of almost all others), that they are only interested in controversy for the sake of controversy. If Phred really wanted good dialogue he wouldn't insult people as often as he does (not that he did in this OP) even when they do their best to be respectful. Phred can be funny. Prhed has the capability of being nice. But Phred very clearly lives for controversy (on this board anyways) and therefore some of us get really really tired of him - NOT BECAUSE WE DISAGREE WITH HIM!

 

There. I said it.

 

And please, I hate raw tomatoes. Please cook them before throwing them. :tongue_smilie:

[ncmomo3]

There. I said it.

 

 

...and you said it very well.

[Kelli in TN]

therefore some of us get really really tired of him - NOT BECAUSE WE DISAGREE WITH HIM!

 

There. I said it.

:

 

 

I'll stand by you.

 

I disagree with a lot of people. But they are people who bring a lot to the table, so to speak, so it's not too hard to agree to disagree and move on. I might argue an issue with a poster today, and tomorrow that same poster might be helping me figure out a curriculum issue. You don't see that with Phred. Phred really does not bring much to the table.

[GraceinMD]

(suggesting that human embryos are equal to hemorrhoids is really and truly inflammatory... just ask anyone who has suffered a miscarriage)

 

I certainly have no vested interest in defending Phred (he can defend himself should he want to) - and I do think he likes to stir things up, often in a manner that seems rude and obnoxious - but I *think* he was not equating embryos to hemorrhoids, but trying (clumsily, for sure) to make the point that just because something is bloody/revolting/difficult-to-watch doesn't mean it's wrong. (This statement is NOT meant to relaunch that thread, and does NOT represent my beliefs!)

 

His lack of tact is often breath-taking, and I wouldn't ascribe it to male-female differences, but rather personality ... but I also think we all should be very careful of misrepresenting each others' words - it seems that that's when threads are locked or deleted.

 

(Of course, there are enough people who are avoiding/ignoring his posts and these threads, so maybe trying to get them deleted is a noble goal, too - you know, for the greater good! :001_smile: *I* think, though, that topics such as this are as relevant to homeschooling as what kind of vacuum cleaner to buy, and I like hearing what others think - especially when their opinions are diametrically opposed to mine.)

 

Anyway, no tomatoes here, but I just thought clarification might be in order.

[nancypants]

*I* think, though, that topics such as this are as relevant to homeschooling as what kind of vacuum cleaner to buy, and I like hearing what others think - especially when their opinions are diametrically opposed to mine.)

 

No, I completely agree with you. A lot of what is posted on these boards has "nothing to do with homeschooling" but they are not aimed solely at controversy most of the time. Kwim? That is why I tire of Phred's incessant posting of controversial topics.

 

As for his hemorrhoid comment, well (while I completely respect your opinion!), I disagree. Prhed is no dummy... I think he knew very well what he was saying and that he meant to shock and yes, even offend people. He's like the Howard Stern of the WTM boards. :tongue_smilie: If his goal was real meaningful dialogue he wouldn't have made such a comparison on a board of women, many of whom he KNOWS have grieved over the pain and loss of miscarriage (among many other pregnancy related scars.) And judging from the many other times he's been very purposely provocative and insulting in his comparisons I'd have to say that it would be really unlikely that this particular comparison was just clumsy. Really unlikely.

[Parabola]

I was shocked to log on today and find the abortion thread gone. I read up to page 10 or so last night and found the discussion thought-provoking, constructive, and rather civil, given the subject matter. Moreover, I thought Phred's original post in the thread to be worded very well so as not to be inflammatory. It's a shame that such issues cannot be discussed on this "general" board without escalating and being deleted. I regret that I missed out on reading the last pages of the discussion, and I think it's a shame that the Powers That Be saw fit to delete it, rather than simply locking it, if they felt things got too heated. We're all big boys and girls here, and it's a shame we can't act, and be treated, as such.

 

:iagree:

 

This is itself debatable. There have been people who have recovered from a "permanent vegetative state"' date=' who were quite aware.[/quote']

The people who have recovered from comas and such are not the same as they were going in. Its a misconception that people just get up and walk off with a big fat smile after a dramatic awakening. They can't walk, they have to re-learn how to do that. That is, after they re-condition their muscles (if they are able) to work right again. They often have dramatic memory problems, some of them never mentally come to terms with the fact that a big part of their life- years - was spent unconscious. They don't recognize family members because in their mind, that person is a lot younger and they can't change that. Their mental capacity is often quite less than it was before. Recovery from a long-term vegatative state is a misnomer, because you don't ever really recover. You may make some progress, but you're really like a stroke victim.

 

As for the actual question about euthanasia, my personal opinion is that its a sad sad sad thing that some people are in so much physical pain that they don't want to live any longer. If they check out ok by multiple psychiatrists as being "of sound mind", if they make their peace with what they need to make their peace with, if they have to give, say, a year's worth of thought to it, then I think their decision should be honored.

 

Myself, if I was in a vegatative state, all I have to say is that I'm with George Carlin on this one;

MORPHINE and TV, buddy!

Give me morphine and tv. I don't want to waste people's time and money on my vegatative body, but I sure as hell don't want to give up EVER. I'll grasp onto whatever shred of life is left in me.

At some point, though, to be realistic, someone is going to have to end my life, assuming I'd been in a vegatative state for some time. Then that's ok, just don't tell me. Sneak up on me before you pull the plug. :O

[Jugglin'5]

He's like the Howard Stern of the WTM boards. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Elaine]

It's probably because Phred very rarely participates in any thread that is not controversial and I've never seen a thread started by him that wasn't intentionally controversial. He loves controversy and is more interested in seeing a bunch of ladies get their nighties in a knot than he is about actual dialogue. I've found this to be true in his rather quick descent into the ridiculous and the obnoxious (suggesting that human embryos are equal to hemorrhoids is really and truly inflammatory... just ask anyone who has suffered a miscarriage) and he quite frequently (not always) is rather rude. I love conversing with people of different view points, especially those on this board who participate in other ways on the board. I for one was glad to see his post gone and I hope this one goes away too. It's not that I don't appreciate a good dialogue when it comes to differences whether religious, moral, scientific, political, etc.... nothing could be further from the truth. But I (personally) really can't stand it when someone makes it clear through the kinds of threads they routinely start and participate in (to the exclusion of almost all others), that they are only interested in controversy for the sake of controversy. If Phred really wanted good dialogue he wouldn't insult people as often as he does (not that he did in this OP) even when they do their best to be respectful. Phred can be funny. Prhed has the capability of being nice. But Phred very clearly lives for controversy (on this board anyways) and therefore some of us get really really tired of him - NOT BECAUSE WE DISAGREE WITH HIM!

 

There. I said it.

 

And please, I hate raw tomatoes. Please cook them before throwing them. :tongue_smilie:

 

Dang! I am all out of rep again. You're good, Nan, real good. :iagree:

[GraceinMD]

I think he knew very well what he was saying and that he meant to shock and yes, even offend people. He's like the Howard Stern of the WTM boards.

 

really unlikely that this particular comparison was just clumsy. Really unlikely.

 

You're probably right. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, but it's not always warranted!

 

I do agree with someone who said that if they wanted controversy (argument? fighting? something like that) they would just spend time elsewhere (well, they said, "... with family," but I get my conflict outside of family)! :D Phred, I think your history here has meant that you're "toxic," and thus your threads are poisoned, too - thus killing interesting and useful discussions. Too bad.

 

You know, though, I really would love to discuss this topic (euthanasia)! I see such pain and despair on the part of many families whose loved ones have dementia, and I KNOW that they believe that their lives and their loved one's life would be easier if death could just occur - or could be hastened. I understand that, but, of course, to agree would be to mean that what I do is pointless, on some level. KWIM?

 

PariSarah and I have discussed this - that, at its very root, ethical issues like this come down to what you believe about suffering - if you do not believe there is a point to suffering, well, then ... why bother keeping someone alive (or allowing them to live)?

 

Oh, well - maybe I'll start a thread on it - I don't think I'm toxic yet ;)!

[Doran]

...[snip]..we need to sort how to tell if a treatment prolongs life, or prolongs the dying process. I don't think that can be legislated.

 

 

This one thought (above) is the one I wrestle with more than any other. It does seem it cannot/should not be legislated, but then again, are we able to make these choices for ourselves via living wills, etc.?

 

 

I have little of value to add to this thread (too much emotion, not enough data), so I am doubly appreciative of what you have offered here, Grace. Thank you.

[Jugglin'5]

 

 

The people who have recovered from comas and such are not the same as they were going in. Its a misconception that people just get up and walk off with a big fat smile after a dramatic awakening. They can't walk, they have to re-learn how to do that. That is, after they re-condition their muscles (if they are able) to work right again. They often have dramatic memory problems, some of them never mentally come to terms with the fact that a big part of their life- years - was spent unconscious. They don't recognize family members because in their mind, that person is a lot younger and they can't change that. Their mental capacity is often quite less than it was before. Recovery from a long-term vegatative state is a misnomer, because you don't ever really recover. You may make some progress, but you're really like a stroke victim.

 

 

 

Well, I never said they had no problems or that everything was just like before. That was not my point. My point was that at least some vegetative patients are aware, and feel pain. Many times two different neurologists will disagree on the prognosis. Therefore I believe starving them to death is a really, really bad idea.

[elbac]

I haven't had a ton of spare time lately, so I've more skimmed the boards than anything recently. I saw the abortion thread and I know I read a bit of it, but it must have been prior to things getting heated.

 

Now, I certainly won't pretend to see all that happens on the board, and I'm well aware that things can happen which are easy to miss. But from what I have observed of Phred, I haven't thought of him as a pot-stirring instigator, but more that his questions make you think outside your box, and really question the how and why, of why you feel and think the way you do about an issue. I have seen posts where I could understand why someone felt offended, but of those, I never felt that was the actual intent.

 

Anyhow, just my little, possibly semi-uninformed, opinion. :tongue_smilie:

 

In reference to the OP, I don't have a hard stance on this issue. I'm most definitely a fence sitter.

[Parabola]

Well' date=' I never said they had no problems or that everything was just like before. That was not my point. My point was that at least some vegetative patients are aware, and feel pain. Many times two different neurologists will disagree on the prognosis. Therefore I believe starving them to death is a really, really bad idea.[/quote']

 

Well, and this is just my perception, I don't consider anyone who is "aware" to be in a vegatative state. I guess when I think veg, I really think veg. As in, nothing but life support keeping them alive, and no signs of brain activity.

[Jill- OK]

*I* think, though, that topics such as this are as relevant to homeschooling as what kind of vacuum cleaner to buy, and I like hearing what others think - especially when their opinions are diametrically opposed to mine.)

 

I think the off-topic stuff is interesting, and a big part of the reason why I come here.

 

*But*...(as the artist formerly known as Pee Wee Herman would say, "There's always a big 'but'...")

 

Most of the ladies (and gents) conversing here have a relationship of sorts. Over the years, we've discussed many a topic...and while homeschooling isn't always the main focus, it's the thing that brought us all here, and at some point, I've learned stuff about an individual's teaching style, book choices, and life experience, and that lends something to their input, even if it's only about vacuum cleaners. (I love my Miele, Colleen).

 

My point (and I do have one) is that that's what makes this a nice, fun place to be, in addition to somewhere that serious topics can be discussed. The trust that's built from knowing that the person you're talking to has an unruly three-year-old, just like you do. And when you're comfortable, and in community with someone, it's different to have a somewhat heated conversation with them about abortion, or the President, than it is to feel as if someone who doesn't seem to want to have that sort of relationship is simply trying to bait you, or show you the error of your ways. There's no real give and take.

 

If I walk into a party, populated with friends, and we're having a random discussion about mommy stuff, and someone walks in, and begins asking leading political/ethical questions, and is openly disdainful and/or snide about some of the answers...I'd walk away. Even if I agreed with the person. Not that I don't have in-depth discussions with strangers, but they're predicated on mutual respect, and if I feel that's missing...there's really no point.*

 

Anyway, just felt like sharing, lol. I don't know that TPTB are thinking along those lines, but that's my guess.

[Jugglin'5]

Well, and this is just my perception, I don't consider anyone who is "aware" to be in a vegatative state. I guess when I think veg, I really think veg. As in, nothing but life support keeping them alive, and no signs of brain activity.

 

Check out these if you are interested:

 

http://www.rense.com/general44/vege.htm

 

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Neurology/GeneralNeurology/tb/4070

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3004892.ece

[mommybee]

Phred-

 

you should check out http://www.soapboxxer.com/

 

It seems like something you might like for these types of discussions.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

If I walk into a party, populated with friends, and we're having a random discussion about mommy stuff, and someone walks in, and begins asking leading political/ethical questions, and is openly disdainful and/or snide about some of the answers...I'd walk away. Even if I agreed with the person. Not that I don't have in-depth discussions with strangers, but they're predicated on mutual respect, and if I feel that's missing...there's really no point.

 

Anyway, just felt like sharing, lol. I don't know that TPTB are thinking along those lines, but that's my guess.

 

TPTB are happy to let controversial discussion stand when it grows organically out of general board chat. (Notice that the single-issue voter threads and others were left alone) TPTB deleted the previous thread not because of the subject matter but because any thread that begins with condescension ("Breathe deep and let's try not to yell") offends TPTB.

 

I've spent too many years seeing groups of thoughtful women condescended to. I don't want to see it here.

 

And yes, I am aware that civility is in the eye of the beholder. On this board, the eye of the beholder is MY eye. This is fair warning: posts that smack of "Now, ladies, let's not be irrational" are going to GO AWAY.

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

SWB

[mommybee]

TPTB are happy to let controversial discussion stand when it grows organically out of general board chat. (Notice that the single-issue voter threads and others were left alone) TPTB deleted the previous thread not because of the subject matter but because any thread that begins with condescension ("Breathe deep and let's try not to yell") offends TPTB.

 

I've spent too many years seeing groups of thoughtful women condescended to. I don't want to see it here.

 

And yes, I am aware that civility is in the eye of the beholder. On this board, the eye of the beholder is MY eye. This is fair warning: posts that smack of "Now, ladies, let's not be irrational" are going to GO AWAY.

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

SWB

 

Thanks SWB-

 

That helps me better understand why some posts are removed.

 

:)

[Rose in BC]

 

And yes, I am aware that civility is in the eye of the beholder. On this board, the eye of the beholder is MY eye. This is fair warning: posts that smack of "Now, ladies, let's not be irrational" are going to GO AWAY.

 

 

SWB

 

Thank you.

[Kelli in TN]

TPTB are happy to let controversial discussion stand when it grows organically out of general board chat. (Notice that the single-issue voter threads and others were left alone) TPTB deleted the previous thread not because of the subject matter but because any thread that begins with condescension ("Breathe deep and let's try not to yell") offends TPTB.

 

I've spent too many years seeing groups of thoughtful women condescended to. I don't want to see it here.

 

And yes, I am aware that civility is in the eye of the beholder. On this board, the eye of the beholder is MY eye. This is fair warning: posts that smack of "Now, ladies, let's not be irrational" are going to GO AWAY.

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

SWB

 

 

You rock!

[Elaine]

Susan Wise Bauer throws down!:lol:

[Twinmom]

I'm with Kelli...Susan, you TOTALLY rock! :D

[Elaine]

I think the off-topic stuff is interesting, and a big part of the reason why I come here.

 

*But*...(as the artist formerly known as Pee Wee Herman would say, "There's always a big 'but'...")

 

 

 

Man do I love a well placed Pee-Wee Herman quote!;)

 

:lol:

[Robin Hood]

He's like the Howard Stern of the WTM boards.

 

I actually had the thought that he is more like the Richard Dawkins of the Hive.

 

You rock!

 

:iagree: Keep on, Susan!

 

Is there a reason why we are encripting this?????

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Parabola]

I actually had the thought that he is more like the Richard Dawkins of the Hive.

 

 

 

 

You should be proud Phred, you just got compared to Dawkins. Kinda makes up for the Howard Stern. At least Dawkins has worthwhile points to make while he is offending some people.

[Amy loves Bud]

I think you mean

 

Raven Rose roxors da crib. don't make me shank ya!

 

 

Yes, SWB, I went and got a rap name for you I hope you like it. Just a small token of thanks for all you've done for my homeschooling over the year. :lol:

[Peek a Boo]

short on time tonight, but as far as the OP I'm basically w/ Grace on this one :)

[Colleen in NS]

I've spent too many years seeing groups of thoughtful women condescended to. I don't want to see it here.

 

And yes, I am aware that civility is in the eye of the beholder. On this board, the eye of the beholder is MY eye. This is fair warning: posts that smack of "Now, ladies, let's not be irrational" are going to GO AWAY.

 

Yep, you're awesome. Thanks again for this wonderful internet space.

[Kelli in TN]

I think you mean

 

Raven Rose roxors da crib. don't make me shank ya!

 

 

Yes, SWB, I went and got a rap name for you I hope you like it. Just a small token of thanks for all you've done for my homeschooling over the year. :lol:

 

 

If they ever need to change the theme from the hive mind, I think a rapper theme could be fun.

[Elaine]

I think you mean

 

Raven Rose roxors da crib. don't make me shank ya!

 

 

Yes, SWB, I went and got a rap name for you I hope you like it. Just a small token of thanks for all you've done for my homeschooling over the year. :lol:

 

You trippin', Vita Luv!:lol:

[Call Me Cordelia]

I was shocked to log on today and find the abortion thread gone. I read up to page 10 or so last night and found the discussion thought-provoking, constructive, and rather civil, given the subject matter. Moreover, I thought Phred's original post in the thread to be worded very well so as not to be inflammatory. It's a shame that such issues cannot be discussed on this "general" board without escalating and being deleted. I regret that I missed out on reading the last pages of the discussion, and I think it's a shame that the Powers That Be saw fit to delete it, rather than simply locking it, if they felt things got too heated. We're all big boys and girls here, and it's a shame we can't act, and be treated, as such.

 

 

Not bothering to read the rest of the thread. It's "inflammatory" because Phred typically just waits for a post that he can argue with point by point. He already has his opinions set. I have yet to see an actual dialogue. Rather, he poses his "questions" and then waits to point out the flaws.

 

Personally I don't see a point. Phred is not a Christian and is fairly hostile towards the Christian worldview. Ok. Whatever. Let's talk about home schooling. I'd love to hear more about how Phred home educates his children. But that's not what Phred discusses. He, in large portion, only begins and/or contributes to threads in which he can slam one worldview.

 

Or nit pick symantics.

 

His questions seemed designed to "stimulate discussion" yet I for one am highly doubtful of his desire to participate in dialogue, only monologue.

[Call Me Cordelia]

TPTB are happy to let controversial discussion stand when it grows organically out of general board chat. (Notice that the single-issue voter threads and others were left alone) TPTB deleted the previous thread not because of the subject matter but because any thread that begins with condescension ("Breathe deep and let's try not to yell") offends TPTB.

 

I've spent too many years seeing groups of thoughtful women condescended to. I don't want to see it here.

 

And yes, I am aware that civility is in the eye of the beholder. On this board, the eye of the beholder is MY eye. This is fair warning: posts that smack of "Now, ladies, let's not be irrational" are going to GO AWAY.

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

SWB

 

Ok...I missed this when I posted. But I now stand and cheer. :iagree: Amen and amen. And Amen.

[elizabeth]

"Personally I don't see a point. Phred is not a Christian and is fairly hostile towards the Christian worldview. Ok. Whatever. Let's talk about home schooling. I'd love to hear more about how Phred home educates his children. But that's not what Phred discusses. He, in large portion, only begins and/or contributes to threads in which he can slam one worldview" This post is not directed only at you but it is again troubling to see a Christian refer to a worldview as if all Christians held the identical worldview. It is not so not even close. http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2231 This is a magazine dedicated to those who are Christian but do not subscribe to your version of a Christian worldview. Regardless of Phred and or his perspective on a supreme being ,I am particularly tired of a mindset that purports to represent the ideas , values and morals of a very large and diverse group comprised of individuals many of whom would gladly call themselves Christians . Again , this is not the first time I have seen this nor will it be the last but please recognize your view is not the only one that exists in Christianity. Please read one or two articles if you are so moved but if not please realize that you do not speak for all Christians nor do I for that matter. The difference is that I refrain from urporting to speak for anyone but myself. I hope this comes across in the manner in which it was intended-not to silence anyone but rather to encourage others to speak up this is not a homogenous group...can I encourage others to consider the wide and gloried variety with which many try to know and understand God??? http://www.sojo.net/

[KidsHappen]

TPTB are happy to let controversial discussion stand when it grows organically out of general board chat. (Notice that the single-issue voter threads and others were left alone) TPTB deleted the previous thread not because of the subject matter but because any thread that begins with condescension ("Breathe deep and let's try not to yell") offends TPTB.

 

I've spent too many years seeing groups of thoughtful women condescended to. I don't want to see it here.

 

And yes, I am aware that civility is in the eye of the beholder. On this board, the eye of the beholder is MY eye. This is fair warning: posts that smack of "Now, ladies, let's not be irrational" are going to GO AWAY.

 

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

SWB

 

I love this! Especially the, "On this board, the eye of the beholder is MY eye." part. I repped you for this. Does this make me a brown noser? I would think not as there is pretty much only one queen bee in each hive, right? :tongue_smilie:

[Mrs Mungo]

You don't like "controversial" posts. But the forum rules say we can talk about anything in here... it's for "just chatting". Isn't this, just chatting? You do know the quickest way in the world to kill a thread don't you? Don't respond.

 

Actually, I don't think the trouble is controversial posts or posters. I think hard feelings arise when a poster *only* posts on controversial topics. If debate arises organically that's one thing but if an "outsider" is coming in and forcing controversy that is a little bit different. I don't say you're an outsider because you are male but because you have not participated in a wide variety of topics. I touched on this somewhere else but I *do* think controversy and difference is more accepted when it comes from someone who we otherwise like and respect. To pick someone out of the air-I may not agree with all of Colleen's politics but I think she is smart and sincere and I like many, many of her posts on many, many other topics. So, I don't get mad at her when we totally disagree. Does that make sense? Just the way I see it, you can take it or leave it, as always.