Trials For Parents Who Chose Faith Over Medicine

Originally Posted by Capo

The only relevant information is that of Christian Science doctrine.

No, the relevant information is whether parents have the right to deny their children medical treatment.

Originally Posted by Capo

If the government were to limit or take away the rights of Christian Science parents to raise their children as they wish

Plenty of such restrictions already exist. We call them "laws." You don't even need to get as specific as what Pang's getting at--it's common sense that you can't do whatever you want to your children.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Yeah, I knew what you were responding to, but the point is that it's a side debate that's irrelevant to the issue. Who cares if it's an accurate interpretation of doctrine.

Quote:

child's health

I'll assume what you really mean is something like "well-being," because otherwise you have an extremely narrow view of what the law should (and does) protect.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

That's nice, but in order to have a society that's not a complete shithole, we have to say that some people's valuations are stupid and wrong. No one cares if a criminal thinks--as almost all do--that his or her crime was justified.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

hey guys the 9/11 dudes really believed in what they did

like, a lot

so please don't be ignorant about that

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

So, you came into this thread to belabor an incredibly obvious point that has no special relevance to the topic at hand and call everyone ignorant at the same time?

dammit lurker stop being faster

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Ness the Mess

People can have different logic and still both be reasoning.

They can have different premises, but you cannot have "different logic" any more than you can have "different math."

I understand what you are saying here, that people do not make "irrational" decisions, that they truly believe they are always making the best choice possible. But, what we mean when we call someone rational, if the word is to have any use at all, is that their arguments are generally sound. For people like those in the OP, we usually find that even if the choice is rational, they made an error at some point in their valuations.

Quote:

I was not calling everyone ignorant. I merely said that if you can't appreciate that people have religious beliefs you are ignorant.

Originally Posted by Ness the Mess

you're all very ignorant of the magnitude they believed their decision was

Oh, okay, so you were just making the retarded assumption that people in this thread don't know that heaven is supposed to be infinitely good?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Awwww yeah, gettin' philosophical up in here. Sewers ahoy!

Originally Posted by Ness the Mess

The belief that what we can witness is the extent of existance is imperial, humanist, and antiquated.

The "world" is defined by what we can perceive. It is nonsensical to speak of something existing in a manner which we could never detect, because that would mean this thing could not interact with the world, and therefore lies "outside" the world, so to speak.

Also, what exactly is your position on logic here? Because you seem to alternately disparage it and bring it to bear in your arguments.

Quote:

...don't be so presumptious as to think that you know more than anyone else, because you have not walked in their shoes.

Here's the problem. You are starting at the end--the conclusion--and looking backwards, and saying, "Hmm, I can see why they would think that." But understandable is not the same as reasonable. Starting with the conclusion is the very definition of irrationality. If you interrogate these people and draw an explanation out of them, you can trace their thoughts back to conceptions of experience, causality, logic, etc. that are very much the same as your own. After all, we are all humans and perceive, more or less, the same "world." Once you have agreed on the premises, all valid deductions following from them are necessarily true, and that is where intellectual superiority comes from. Somewhere along the way to those (correct) deductions, these people stumble, and not according to some imposed way of thinking, but a shared worldview that they will, if pressed, agree upon.

Most amazing jew boots