John A, John T, Jim:
heh. the hilarious thing: i spent an hour convincing R the other night of the logic of Marta's position on this AND on avoiding language such as "justice is blind" or "lame." So, I think that Dwayne's and Jim's claims that we don't understand her position are off base. Understanding doesn't mean I'll agree and it sure as shit doesn't mean that I'm like Dr. K or even unwittingly an oppressor of the disabled. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but calling people names, using guilt, using logical fallacy, and presenting false information is not going to win me over. If it's not going to win ME over, a person who is an advocate of disability rights and, who, if I had insurance, would probably be diagnosed as disabled on a lest two counts, why should the same tactics win over people who clearly aren't on your side? The problem is that, when we say things like, "we don't want to burden Others" that is turned around to mean that we think that the disabled are burdens. It is also argued that it is part of a larger system of oppression and that kind of talk should also be eliminated.
At 01:27 AM 3/25/2005, John Adams wrote:
>I understand the logic of Marta's position. Sometimes law is used in a way
>that makes respect for law bad. I think she's wrong in this case, but it's
>not like there isn't an argument on her side to be made.
the problem is, calling people hypocrits is logical fallacy. it's effectively saying: Lookee here, she would never ever agree that the legal system was fair in the case of some death row inmates, but she relies on it now. See how she will defend black people but not the disabled against in just ass. Hypocrit!"
You are then supposed to feel ashamed of yourself because you are an ablist AND a hypocrite. It's manipulative, it poisons the wells of discourse. It's logical fallacy. I'm supposed to say, "with all due respect" here. Screw that.
At 12:14 AM 3/25/2005, jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>Count me in with the misinformed then. I thought the parents took it to
>court to overturn his decision. I wonder why he turned it over to the courts?
<div id = "tinFoilHat">
Well, obviously, he is a devious, plotting man. YOu see, he was a wifebeater and his beatings resulted in the heart attack. But, he's devious, so he figgered that, if he used the courts to decide, they would look favorably on him as a loving hubby who just couldn't make the decision himself. Therefore, the courts would never, ever consider malicious motives -- like he wanted to off her ASAP to cover up his dirty deeds. And, not only that, he had a new family, moved on with life after 8 years. It is a bad, bad thing to want to move on with your life and a bad, bad thing to want some of that settlement money for the new family because, after all, you should always always always be unselfish and do nothing like, oh, have a life and, oh, want to live on the money you paid freakin' insurance premiums to collect in the event your spouse died. you should probably off yourself for feeling that way, capiche? </div>
That, btw, is a compilation of views expressed by the cons over at another list.
Funny thing is, reading the court document, it turns out that his in-laws TOLD him to move on with his life and they encouraged him to find someone else. Why people sit around in judgement about that is beyond my comprehension. Hey, call me a dim bulb.
You know what evidence the family put forth? It turns out they were using a statement made when Terri was 11. The other statement was made as a "bad joke" and she was also a kid at the time. The reason they didn't find it credible was that the witness both testified and gave a deposition. Her confidence in her memory changed from deposition to testimony. She also repeatedly quoted what Terri said as if it were spoken in the PRESENT tense --and they were suposedly discussing something that happened in the past. IOW, the court figured that the shift in confidence in memory AND the error in reportage (getting dates screwed up) AND the slippage speaking in present tense pointed to the likelihood that the lying in this case was from the family. It's in the PDF link I pasted.
The evidence from Schiavo was two statements she made to him. She also made statements to relatives: once at a funeral luncheon and once after watching a film. Those statements were made to her brother- and sister-in-law. She apparently said that she didn't want to burden her family and she didn't want to be kept alive by machine. The courst actually took that into consideration. It was important to them that she apparently said that about being kept alive by a machine. They also took into consideration that she meant under particular circumstances.
Hissily,
Cunt