god bless you... what do you mean i'm fired?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't agree either, but I don't bother arguing w/ Ishmael.

It's useless.....

Ishmael is one angry kid.

Macbeth; you really are a bastard, aren't you?
I've told you what the word "colonial" equates to.
You insist on saying it.
It's depressing to see how immature and childish your... kind, can be.
I could call you a "peasant" again, to illustrate - though to a far lesser extent - the offense of the illogical and wildly innacurate, derogatory and offensive word "colonial", but why bother?
Evidently you are a child pretending to be an adult for all you're worth.
You end your post with "colonial", in deliberate sense! Not in a mocking, retaliatory vein, but in deliberate hope of conflict!
Well, enough.
No more of your childs games. It is plainly clear you hold racist, pro-imperial, anti-Australian, derogatory views, and I refuse to stand for it.

My own conduct is not always at the most gentlemanly level; I do possess a volatile temper, especially when harassed by xenophobes possessing centuries old rhetoric on a world they no longer possess.

If you EVER seek to harass me with your sickening, imperial anti-Australian slurs again, I will not simply mockingly respond in hopes you may simply be silent and let it end there.
If EVER you type the word "colonial", or any other of your filthy, wretched and deliberate xenophobic hate, I will have to seek - even if unsuccessfully - to try and have you banned for your racism. Is that clear?

------------------

Back on topic, now, the simple fact is that this woman did not behave appropriately, as regarded by her employers, and so lost her job.
It is about respecting the position and environment; if it is required of her to not speak of religion within the limits of her employment, and she fails to live up to that, she loses her job.

And this is why....

I think one can debate without using personal attacks and debasing assumptions on that person who doesn't agree.

Last edited by MissConstrue on 10 Feb 2009, 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

At the risk of walking into the middle of a flame-fest, here's my $0.02:

First thing, I'm no fan of Christianity. It is probably one of the most destructive ideologies in the history of humanity. Just thought I'd mention that lest someone mistake me for an apologist for the religion.

As I understand it, the nurse in question did nothing to force her religion on the patient; her actions amounted to little more than informing the patient that was going to perform a particular religious rite when she got home. She was basically saying "when I get home, I'm going to perform this magic ritual (in the hope it might make you get better), is that okay with you?". If she'd instead informed the patient that she intended to play poker when she got home, that would be little different, and would in no way be forcing her poker playing on the patient. And if she were to ask the patient permission to play poker when she gets home, well, that would certainly be weird, but it is not forcing anything on anybody. And if, while asking the patient permission to perform whatever activities she likes in her own time, she were to inform the patient that she believes that playing poker will increase the patient's chances of recovery, that would not in any way constitute 'forcing' that view on anybody; as she has not crossed the line into prosletysation - all she has basically done is state a fact - i.e. "I believe x, y and z, and I'm going to do n".

Personally, if someone were to say to me "I hope you don't mind if I play poker tonight in the hopes that it might make you get better", while I would quite naturally consider them to be somewhat (okay, very) delusional, I would not interpret it as them trying to make me believe as they do. Rather I'd see it as them saying a) I have this crazy belief, b) my crazy belief tells me that if I do x, it will make you get better, so if you're okay with it, I'll do that. As such, I'd recognise the intent behind the action; the person is trying to help, and even if it is completely inefficacious, it's the thought that counts.

Of course, this all assumes that such beliefs do not interfere with the person's judgement. After all, it does cast some level of doubt on someone's competence if they genuinely believe that some crazy ritual, such as playing cards, burning incense, or attempting to telepathically communicate with immortal beings with magic powers could have any medical benefit. The logical conclusion of such beliefs, is that if someone truly believes that communicating with gods, or rearranging furniture, or taking regular doses of Crazy Bob's Snake Oil actually has a genuine benefit, then naturally they might begin to think of these things as valid substitutes for actually medical treatment. After all, if they really did work, they would be! As long as they don't take those beliefs to their logical conclusion, there's no problem, but the instant somebody thinks that praying for a patient means they don't have to treat them, then it's time for criminal charges. However, there's nothing in the article to suggest that this happened here. That said, the belief in general that non-efficacious things, such as prayer, alternative medicine, and whatnot actually work is dangerous, and has led to countless deaths, but this is not the appropriate arena to challenge them. The action taken against the nurse is counterproductive in this case. Those beliefs should be subjected to the scorn and ridicule they deserve, but to suspend a nurse for merely stating the fact that she believed certain things, without letting said things interfere with her work, is not the way to challenge them and sends the wrong message, and if anything hinders the fight against such irrational thinking by creating the 'persecution' and 'martyrdom' that such ideologies thrive on. These beliefs should be fought with arguments, not with petty actions such as this.

She did not attempt to convert the patient. She did not attempt to use prayer as a substitute for medical treatment. Now, if she'd tried to get the patient to pray, or cast a spell, or embrace Communism, and told the patient that they must do those things in order to attain the best chance of recovery, then that would be crossing the line into prosletysing. Such action would clearly be exploiting the patient's vulnerability in order to make them accept certain ideologies, using the same trick scam artists use to exploit their victims, and should have no place in a hospital. There's no reason to believe that happened.

Now, it's entirely possible that she might have tried to get the patient to pray, but the article didn't mention it, but unless some further evidence comes along, then on the basis of the claims made by the article, the action against her was unjustified.

That's because I'm the only one who's always right. People think that's ego, stubborness, even accusations of bigotry and fascism, foolishly enough.
But I am very literally a f*****g genius. Sure, it's fun to arbitrarily dismiss my comments because you superficially assume that I only assume, or to make funny comments, slowmutant, like "Ishmaels one angry 'kid'", but do you have to live in an environment where you have never even met someone approaching your capabilities?
Have you had to make the choice between destroying your sanity and health in your work, or taking the Hemingway option? I can instantaneously analyze all f*****g options and possibilities. I can barely speak, my thoughts move too fast; nothing has ever challenged me.
I know if I'm wrong, because it's simply one possibility.
But, when I'm not, I'm not.
So, of course it's fun to say it's "useless". Sure... Whatever.
So, how is that different than any other average-level person who dismisses my arguments because I haven't taken the time to point out the flaws in your own, nor walking you through how I reach my conclusions. Bah, I'm sick of helping average people play catch-up in the real world! Disagree with me; but from thoroughly thought out arguments more complex than "that's not nice" or "that's not what should happen", "that doesn't fit my ideals/theology" or "this event is an exception to the norm".
Think beyond the typical reactions! These thoughts are not new; I've already experienced them.
Do something more constructive than insult me, or pity whomever is involved in whatever!

That's because I'm the only one who's always right. People think that's ego, stubborness, even accusations of bigotry and fascism, foolishly enough.
But I am very literally a f*****g genius. Sure, it's fun to arbitrarily dismiss my comments because you superficially assume that I only assume, or to make funny comments, slowmutant, like "Ishmaels one angry 'kid'", but do you have to live in an environment where you have never even met someone approaching your capabilities?
Have you had to make the choice between destroying your sanity and health in your work, or taking the Hemingway option? I can instantaneously analyze all f*****g options and possibilities. I can barely speak, my thoughts move too fast; nothing has ever challenged me.
I know if I'm wrong, because it's simply one possibility.
But, when I'm not, I'm not.
So, of course it's fun to say it's "useless". Sure... Whatever.
So, how is that different than any other average-level person who dismisses my arguments because I haven't taken the time to point out the flaws in your own, nor walking you through how I reach my conclusions. Bah, I'm sick of helping average people play catch-up in the real world! Disagree with me; but from thoroughly thought out arguments more complex than "that's not nice" or "that's not what should happen", "that doesn't fit my ideals/theology" or "this event is an exception to the norm".
Think beyond the typical reactions! These thoughts are not new; I've already experienced them.
Do something more constructive than insult me, or pity whomever is involved in whatever!

Really?

Well, I'll just take your word for it.

I'm not big on condescending people when it comes to debating logically. Maybe I've made some mistakes but it's not a good way to prove a point or argument without using sound judgement.

As ironic as this may seem, your style of argument is exactly why church and state should be seperate. Any belief system including atheism does not have the right or shouldn't have the logical right to persecute and put down others b/c they do not fit your personal views.

Anyway, each has their own opposing views but opposing views does not make one right over the other by using names and assumptions....only evidence. At least that is my belief of a reasonable argument.

This thread has turned into an unintentional comedy goldmine.

(Is it an American thing, or is it really as rofltastic as it seemed to be arguing over who's a "peasant"?)

I think it's a global disaster thing....

Missconstrue, don't try to be insulting by saying you'll "take my word for it" - at least, I assume you are being sarcastic.
Atheism is NOT a belief system! Literally A-Theism!
The term ought not to exist in the first place; "theism" shouldn't be in the table!
But, f**k it, I don't care. You want a pity-party for archaic rites? Go f*****g nuts.
f**k it, people I disagree with should just be happy I let them live!
I'm sick and f*****g tired of people. Just shut up and do as I say!
For once, could people just shut the f**k up and do as I order?! I'm sick of having to trick people into doing the right thing! Stop pretending you can f*****g think for yourselves, and behave like the good little pack animals you should!
f**k it, there is no "equality", there is always something better suited for something!
I am sick of average people who think they matter!
f**k pretending to be nice - just shut up, survive, breed, and hope your offspring is better than you! Every last f*****g human, shut up!

...and that's what I think whenever some f****r tries to pretend magic is real, ignorance of the wonder of the universe is something to take pride in, and that humanity is somehow "unique" and "special"...

... The universe still has new things to offer, religion is a dead, archaic and frequently disproven error, why are people dumb enough to think that you can possibly equate a mind closed to anything but magic, to a scientific view?

Atheism shouldn't even be a word; theism is debunked, on it's very last legs.
But, it's still depressing to see people want to live with their head in the sand.

You actually find it funny? That's sick!
You are an American, so perhaps you can be forgiven for your ignorance,
but "colonial" is one of the most derogatory, insulting slurs to direct at an Australian.
It is VERY LITERALLY the same as calling an African-American "n****r"
It is NOT funny! It is extremely offensive!
"peasant" was about all I could manage in a mocking sense - without getting down to his xenophobic level.

No mate, he's right. Its actually hilarious watching you go berserk, with your egomaniacal claims and utterly insane attempts at insult. You think I'm anti-aussie? Some of my closest friends are Aussies. I like lots of Aussies, and think they are great people. In fact I like almost every single one I ever spoke to, and they like me. There are in fact two groups of Aussies in my experience.. the majority, which are great, and the minority... I can think of only two that I find.. rude and reprehensible, and generally unpleasant. Take an educated guess where you come....

Some of us would like to debate matters like adults, using the knowledge and experience we have to make point, and counter-point. Some of us actually manage to do so without claiming to be some sort of misunderstood genius, or by resorting to abusive rants, or inventing racial slurs. Some of us would like to carry on doing so.

And I don't care when you federated from wherever or when you were born.. your home nation was founded as a colony. This is fact. Absolute fact that cannot be changed by your "genius" into anything else. Many other places were also Colonised. The Americas for example. The people who reside there are, by and large, Colonists, or the descendants of Colonists.

How old are you? "Call me Colonial and I'll get you banned".. because that's more offensive than the s**t you have spouted at me? D'yreally think so? "Colonial" vs "You really are a bastard", "immature, childish" "peasant scum" "fool" and so on? Get over yourself and try thinking outside the playground. You don't agree with what I'm saying, try using a reasoned argument instead of a tirade of abuse. I would have thought that a "genius" (sic) could do that without spitting out his dummy..

Stop! All of you. I can't even believe you people are adults. Why can't you just stick to the topic with out acting like Jackasses?

The woman shouldn't have been fired. But she shouldn't have offered to pray unless she knew the person was part of her faith.

I suspect she had no reason to believe that the woman she was treating would react in such a fashion. It has been acceptable behaviour for a long time to offer things like a quiet prayer. Its akin to saying "God bless you" at a sneeze, to some... or "Aleikum Salaam" to a Muslim.

For what it's worth, my country got started as a colony.

I don't find that the least bit offensive.