Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Sheldon]

How is that supposed to help you? Did you even read them?

I couldn't even get the links to work?

 

[Sheldon]

Subduction Zone said: ↑
How is that supposed to help you? Did you even read them?

No I did not. I am fine with these claims,

Priceless...

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I did not check the links. I am fine with these claims, they are near identical to Australia's and other places like Holland and Belgium
YOU guys want the references.

LOL! Oh my lord no! That is not how it works. You just as much as admitted that you were wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I couldn't even get the links to work?

The real Sheldon could But the real Sheldon was at Cal Tech where accessing US websites is easy peasy.

 

[PruePhillip]

Priceless...

Actually, I am NOT quite fine with these figures.
45% for 2007, at an annualized increase of what, 5%?
Maybe by now a lot more sad and lonely people have been snuffed out. Of interest in my link is the fact that in Oregon they kept euthenasia records for 12 months. Now why would a government dept do that? To avoid scrutiny - of course I can't 'prove' that or 'show a link' but my priceless instincts tells me this is a reasonable suspicion.

 

[Sheldon]

Actually, I am NOT quite fine with these figures.
45% for 2007, at an annualized increase of what, 5%?
Maybe by now a lot more sad and lonely people have been snuffed out. Of interest in my link is the fact that in Oregon they kept euthenasia records for 12 months. Now why would a government dept do that? To avoid scrutiny - of course I can't 'prove' that or 'show a link' but my priceless instincts tells me this is a reasonable suspicion.

Repeating the claim, let alone doubling down on it, after admitting you haven't even bothered to read the links you provided, and which apparently do not support your claim, is pretty hilarious.

I read a story you were wrong more often than not, I don't have a citation, and I haven't read it all, but I'm fine with the claim.

 

[PruePhillip]

LOL! Oh my lord no! That is not how it works. You just as much as admitted that you were wrong.

Repeating the claim, let alone doubling down on it, after admitting you haven't even bothered to read the links you provided, and which apparently do not support your claim, is pretty hilarious.
I read a story you were wrong more often than not, I don't have a citation, and I haven't read it all, but I'm fine with the claim.

I don't read the links to an article, therefore I am wrong ???
Maybe the links are wrong too, wot then?
I have no problem accepting that half of all euthenasia cases in the Western world do not involve terminally ill people in palliative care. Indeed, now many euthenasia cases simply involve mental illnesses. And the scope for euthenasia has been gradually expanded. In Australia this widening of the definitions is called 'reform' - no different that divorce liberalisation, abortion limits, gambling controls, drug deregulation, gay decriminalisation etc.. These things are presented as limited and restricted, until they are not.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't read the links to an article, therefore I am wrong ???

I guess we will never know, since your claim was unsupported, by any objective evidence, and or rational argument, I have to disbelieve it.

Maybe the links are wrong too, wot then?

Fact check them by using as many sources as you can, be sure to check that the sources are reasonably reliable, and not just offered biased rhetoric. The more outrageous or extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be to support it.

I have no problem accepting that half of all euthenasia cases in the Western world do not involve terminally ill people in palliative care.

Yes we know, and what's astonishing is you think such obvious bias on your part, makes validating the claim less important, when it is far more important. It's euthanasia by the way not euthenasia (sic), a simple spell check see?

Indeed, now many euthenasia cases simply involve mental illnesses.

I have no idea, do you have a credible citation that any of them do?

And the scope for euthenasia has been gradually expanded.

Citation please, also what's your point, since we were starting from none this seems almost trivially true when offered without any context as you have done?

In Australia this widening of the definitions is called 'reform' - no different that divorce liberalisation, abortion limits, gambling controls, drug deregulation, gay decriminalisation etc.. These things are presented as limited and restricted, until they are not.

You keep doing this, lumping in things you don't like as if they are all wrong or immoral, when this is your subjective opinion, as if the world not validating your beliefs and choices mean it's doomed. Divorce, being gay, gambling, abortion, decriminalising certain drugs, I don't see anything inherently wrong in any of that. So beyond your subjective religious beliefs, can you offer any cogent rational explanation of why you think they are harmful, be specific?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't read the links to an article, therefore I am wrong ???
Maybe the links are wrong too, wot then?
I have no problem accepting that half of all euthenasia cases in the Western world do not involve terminally ill people in palliative care. Indeed, now many euthenasia cases simply involve mental illnesses. And the scope for euthenasia has been gradually expanded. In Australia this widening of the definitions is called 'reform' - no different that divorce liberalisation, abortion limits, gambling controls, drug deregulation, gay decriminalisation etc.. These things are presented as limited and restricted, until they are not.

No, it shows that you have no clue about what you are talking about. It does not "prove you wrong". It makes your claims of no value. You could be right, but the odds are very high that you are wrong and there is no need for anyone to refute you since you practically do that for us.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No because I read it in a newspaper a few weeks back. But it does make perfect sense - the first euthenasia concerned people of sound mind who were about to die - now it is involving un-sound people or those with potentially decades of life ahead of them. Euthenasia advocates promised this wouldn't happen, even put it into laws - and now (as shown in Tasmania) those laws are being 'reformed.'

Why Assisted Suicide Must Not Be Legalized (dredf.org)
Moreover, there is a significant danger that many people would choose assisted suicide due to external pressure. Elderly individuals who don’t want to be a financial or caretaking burden on their families might take this escape. In fact, the percentage of reported Oregon cases attributed to patients’ reluctance to burden their families has risen alarmingly. It totaled 12 percent in 1998, but increased to 26 percent in 1999, then 42 percent in 2005, and 45 percent in 2007.[32] Nothing in the Oregon law will protect patients when there are family pressures, whether financial or emotional, which distort patient choice.



29 year old woman is euthenased after suffering from depression in Holland
A woman’s final Facebook message before euthanasia: ‘I’m ready for my trip now...’ | Assisted dying | The Guardian

Mental disorders in Belgium
Abandon All Hope: Euthanasia for Mental Disorders - Australian Care Alliance

What you claimed ....

In Australia 47% of all euthenasia cases involve people who are not terminally ill people.

What you provided ....

there is a significant danger that many people would choose assisted suicide due to external pressure. Elderly individuals who don’t want to be a financial or caretaking burden on their families might take this escape. In fact, the percentage of reported Oregon cases attributed to patients’ reluctance to burden their families has risen alarmingly..... 45 percent in 2007.

That doesn't say they weren't terminally ill. It claims they thought they'd be a burden to their families.

 

[SkepticThinker]

[32] Trend noted by Licia Corbella, “If Doctors Who Won’t Kill Are Wicked, the World Is Sick: In Jurisdictions Where Euthanasia Is Allowed, A Loss of Choice Has Followed,” Vancouver Sun, January 14, 2009. See also Oregon Public Health Division, Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act: The First Year’s Experience, 1999, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/Pro...earch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year1.pdf (accessed July 13, 2009); Oregon’s Public Health Division, Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act: The Second Year’s Experiences, 2000, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/Pro...earch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year2.pdf (accessed July 13, 2009); and Oregon Public Health Division, Eighth Annual Report on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, 2006, available at http://public.health.oregon.gov/Pro...earch/DeathwithDignityAct/Documents/year8.pdf (accessed July 13, 2009).

That doesn't say what you claim it does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you claimed ....

In Australia 47% of all euthenasia cases involve people who are not terminally ill people.

What you provided ....

there is a significant danger that many people would choose assisted suicide due to external pressure. Elderly individuals who don’t want to be a financial or caretaking burden on their families might take this escape. In fact, the percentage of reported Oregon cases attributed to patients’ reluctance to burden their families has risen alarmingly..... 45 percent in 2007.

That doesn't say they weren't terminally ill. It claims they thought they'd be a burden to their families.

It also says that there was only a rise in a rate. Did you know that 126% of the people out there do not understand statistics at all?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually, I am NOT quite fine with these figures.
45% for 2007, at an annualized increase of what, 5%?
Maybe by now a lot more sad and lonely people have been snuffed out. Of interest in my link is the fact that in Oregon they kept euthenasia records for 12 months. Now why would a government dept do that? To avoid scrutiny - of course I can't 'prove' that or 'show a link' but my priceless instincts tells me this is a reasonable suspicion.

You think the government kept records to avoid scrutiny? Pardon?
And now we're making claims based on "instinct?"
Oh dear.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It also says that there was only a rise in a rate. Did you know that 126% of the people out there do not understand statistics at all?

Yes, good point!

 

[PruePhillip]

You think the government kept records to avoid scrutiny? Pardon?
And now we're making claims based on "instinct?"
Oh dear.

On the link (yes, link) it made the point that in at least one state government 'kept' records for twelve months. Not seven years, or 100 years, but one year.
Why bother recording this topic at all?
There's two reasons for one year records
1 - your government doesn't have a need for records beyond one year
2 - your government wants to avoid scrutiny on euthenasia

This happens with the gun lobby too - few records, no government funding of the subject.

 

[PruePhillip]

That doesn't say what you claim it does.

Certainly, you said the links were dead.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, it shows that you have no clue about what you are talking about. It does not "prove you wrong". It makes your claims of no value. You could be right, but the odds are very high that you are wrong and there is no need for anyone to refute you since you practically do that for us.

So all I have to do is find ONE PERSON who will live longer than six months, is not in palliative care and having successful (or no) pain management - and this person was ABLE to be put to death by medical authorities.

There's a double standard in lots of this. I recall the 'argument' that capital punishment 'should be televised to show what it is like' but ask the same person should late-term abortion be televised? They will declare you 'gross' without showing any ability to have self-assessment or self-criticism of what they said.

 

[PruePhillip]

I guess we will never know, since your claim was unsupported, by any objective evidence, and or rational argument, I have to disbelieve it.
Fact check them by using as many sources as you can, be sure to check that the sources are reasonably reliable, and not just offered biased rhetoric. The more outrageous or extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be to support it.
Yes we know, and what's astonishing is you think such obvious bias on your part, makes validating the claim less important, when it is far more important. It's euthanasia by the way not euthenasia (sic), a simple spell check see?
I have no idea, do you have a credible citation that any of them do?
Citation please, also what's your point, since we were starting from none this seems almost trivially true when offered without any context as you have done?
You keep doing this, lumping in things you don't like as if they are all wrong or immoral, when this is your subjective opinion, as if the world not validating your beliefs and choices mean it's doomed. Divorce, being gay, gambling, abortion, decriminalising certain drugs, I don't see anything inherently wrong in any of that. So beyond your subjective religious beliefs, can you offer any cogent rational explanation of why you think they are harmful, be specific?

You might have glowing thoughts about homosexuals, abortion, easy divorce, teenage pregnancy, 'recreational' drugs etc.. Lots do. No problem.
BUT GO BACK A FEW YEARS AND LIBERAL MINDED PEOPLE SAID THESE THINGS WOULDN'T BECOME SO WIDESPREAD, MAINSTREAM AND LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THEIR CRITICS SAID THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE ONE DAY. .

 

[Sheldon]

On the link (yes, link) it made the point that in at least one state government 'kept' records for twelve months. Not seven years, or 100 years, but one year.
Why bother recording this topic at all?
There's two reasons for one year records
1 - your government doesn't have a need for records beyond one year
2 - your government wants to avoid scrutiny on euthenasia

This happens with the gun lobby too - few records, no government funding of the subject.

Assumptions and guesses are not the way to present soundly reasoned arguments.

 

[Sheldon]

Certainly, you said the links were dead.

Nope, that was me. I can try them again, but I couldn't get any of them to work, and I tried several times.