22 Sep 10
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kanother Josef Mengele, how vewy vewy intwesting and no people should know and be aware of how many deaths have arisen and continue to arise through this barbaric practice. Like Mengele are you trying to convince us that what has been done has benefited humanity?? Is that what you are implying? these innocents died yet thousands were benefited and that therefore justifies the practice?? well well, who'd have thought it.
Of course there is a risk. What you fail to acknowledge is that the benefits outweigh the risks. No one in serious need of a transfusion would say 'Better not take that. I might get AIDS'. That's ridiculous.
22 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrah yes of course, another attempt at justification, at this rate anyone dying as a direct consequence of transfused blood shall not be a simple bi product nor a statistic to be brushed under the carpet, nooo, but a martyr for the cause and a folk hero, all twenty zillion of them! try the internet, i heard people there care.
Your source is over 20 years old. In which old folks' home should I find the journalist?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't see how this is any different to other risks in hospitals. Thousands of people contract infections in hospitals. Do you think however that hospital care is somehow comparable to Josef Mengele?
another Josef Mengele, how vewy vewy intwesting and no people should know and be aware of how many deaths have arisen and continue to arise through this barbaric practice. Like Mengele are you trying to convince us that what has been done has benefited humanity?? Is that what you are implying? these innocents died yet thousands were benefited and that therefore justifies the practice?? well well, who'd have thought it.
Yes, I will say that blood transfusions have profoundly saved humanity. You point to a few thousand over three decades; I can point you to thousands each week whose lives are saved by blood transfusions. You really are scum.
22 Sep 10
6 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Ki am not the one who is trying to sweep under the carpet in the most dismissive and derogatory terms possible the lives of hundreds of thousands who have been seriously injured some of which have died as a consequence of blood transfusions, nor to try to justify those innocent deaths am i, you are the real scum here for that, make no mistake about it!
I don't see how this is any different to other risks in hospitals. Thousands of people contract infections in hospitals. Do you think however that hospital care is somehow comparable to Josef Mengele?
Yes, I will say that blood transfusions have profoundly saved humanity. You point to a few thousand over three decades; I can point you to thousands each week whose lives are saved by blood transfusions. You really are scum.
'its ok thousands die anyway', you Nazi scum! 'it could not be helped, they were going to die anyway, its the risk you take', exactly the same reasoning Mengele used to justify his actions! exactly the same!
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am not sneaking anything under the carpet. I readily acknowledge those statistics as credible. I add the fact that the statistics are dated and practices have improved as well. I just do not, however, think it very significant. I would prefer to receive a transfusion and live, whether or not I contract an infection, rather than die needlessly. Deucer has already given a personal example of this. Are you saying it was better for his sister to die?
i am not the one who is trying to sweep under the carpet in the most dismissive and derogatory terms possible the lives of hundreds of thousands who have been seriously injured some of which have died as a consequence of blood transfusions, nor to try to justify those innocent deaths am i, you are the real scum here for that, make no mistake about it ...[text shortened]... ou take', exactly the same reasoning Mengele used to justify his actions! exactly the same!
'its ok thousands die anyway', you Nazi scum! 'it could not be helped, they were going to die anyway, its the risk you take', exactly the same reasoning Mengele used to justify his actions! exactly the same!
No. It's not. No one is actively and deliberately killing others. Infections are only an unfortunate consequence of the transfusion and authorities should work to minimise infection. Nonetheless, the benefits outweigh the risks. I have put this to you several times -- there are a number of risks in hospitals. Infections are quite common from other sources and people have died. Seriously, do you think hospitals are Mengelian?
22 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWow, you've really lost the thread of this argument. You're swinging blind. The point is not that people have tragically died from BT. People tragically die from all sorts of medical technologies, some of which your blood cult endorses. Yes, let us light candles, wear sackcloth and ashes, play violins for those dead from botched BTs. But that doesn't show that BTs are medically unjustified, that they didn't prolong or save inestimably more lives than they've indirectly ended, that in many circumstances they are the best available option, that there are some circumstances where JWs will die when they could be saved via a BT, that there are children who will get BTs and feel absolutely horrible about it for the rest of their lives because they have been brainwashed, etc., etc. etc. Seriously, figure out what you're trying to argue. It's embarrassing reading you flailing around like this.
ah yes of course, another attempt at justification, at this rate anyone dying as a direct consequence of transfused blood shall not be a simple bi product nor a statistic to be brushed under the carpet, nooo, but a martyr for the cause and a folk hero, all twenty zillion of them! try the internet, i heard people there care.
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by Conrau Klook you want to advocate blood transfusions, that is your business, i do not condemn you for it but as per the dictates of my conscious i cannot accept it. If you want to justify it then that is also your prerogative, i shall not justify it and i resent being called a scum for taking the stance that i have.
I am not sneaking anything under the carpet. I readily acknowledge those statistics as credible. I add the fact that the statistics are dated and practices have improved as well. I just do not, however, think it very significant. I would prefer to receive a transfusion and live, whether or not I contract an infection, rather than die needlessly. Deucer has ...[text shortened]... n from other sources and people have died. Seriously, do you think hospitals are Mengelian?
23 Sep 10
6 edits
Originally posted by bbarri didnt realise that you blushed so easily must be your sensative nature, who can tell? and in case you have not noticed, our stance is not based on whether they are medically harmful or otherwise (third time now?), for clearly they have been and continue to be, our stance is based on the right of self determination and a deeply felt religious belief, therefore once again you have missed the entire point, in fact i doubt you could have erred so widely even if you had tried.
Wow, you've really lost the thread of this argument. You're swinging blind. The point is not that people have tragically died from BT. People tragically die from all sorts of medical technologies, some of which your blood cult endorses. Yes, let us light candles, wear sackcloth and ashes, play violins for those dead from botched BTs. But that doesn't show ut what you're trying to argue. It's embarrassing reading you flailing around like this.
I deny that it is brainwashing, the court in Newfoundland did not think it was brainwashing and yet here you are with your vast experience and complete knowledge pontificating from your room full of mirrors about another persons faith of which you know next to nothing? does that not strike you as peculiarly odd? listen up, any more sensationalistic unsubstantiated spam like your last post shall be ignored, for i have better things to do with my time than correspond with senseless reprobates who are content to do nothing but tear down and have contributed nothing to anyone's understanding of the principles and issues involved. I trust that is clear enough.
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, idiot, I know you're actual rejection of BTs is based on your bizarre literalist interpretation of scripture, and the ridiculous beliefs this engenders. Everybody knows this, and that's why we've characterized you and the rest of the JWs as variously insane or evil. It is you that has been tirelessly dredging up outdated "sources" in an effort to show that BTs are harmful. It's when you started doing this that we (1) reminded you that according to your own beliefs, whether BTs are medically helpful or hurtful is besides the point, and (2) that they are incredibly more helpful than harmful, and getting better all the time. But you persist in going on and on about those tragic BT deaths. But why would you, if it really isn't the point? Either because you're trying to obfuscate your actual position or because you are so confused you don't know just what you're arguing any more. But, because I care about you, and want your beliefs to be reality-based, I labor pointing out that your data is outdated, that it is bad nonetheless, that your interpretations of the data doesn't support your position, that your comparisons are beside the point, and so on. It's tough love, but hopefully you'll grow from it.
i didnt realise that you blushed so easily must be your sensative nature, who can tell? and in case you have not noticed, our stance is not based on whether they are medically harmful or otherwise (third time now?), for clearly they have been and continue to be, our stance is based on the right of self determination and a deeply felt religious belie ...[text shortened]... n and have contributed nothing to anyone's understanding of the principles and issues involved.
23 Sep 10
5 edits
Originally posted by bbarrok time for the old ignore button, i think ill change your name and you avatar as well, lets see. . . .how about bbarrs irn bru, made in scotland, from girders, more refreshing and certainly more appealing on the eye, yes, you shall hence for be known as bbars irn bru, ('i havent got a clue', in Glasgow rhyming slang and also quite a refreshing drink as well, quite appropriate don't you think? oops i wont be able to see your reply, oh well, i feel relieved of having excused myself from your presence already.
No, idiot, I know you're actual rejection of BTs is based on your bizarre literalist interpretation of scripture, and the ridiculous beliefs this engenders. Everybody knows this, and that's why we've characterized you and the rest of the JWs as variously insane or evil. It is you that has been tirelessly dredging up outdated "sources" in an effort to e beside the point, and so on. It's tough love, but hopefully you'll grow from it.
The only real lesson i have learned is to stay clear of well, tabloid sensationalistic journalists. . . with unsubstantiated opinions masquerading as some self proclaimed truth, haha, mirror mirror on the wall, who is the fairest God of them all!
23 Sep 10
Originally posted by galveston75No one is putting you guys to death here either. That's a persecution complex no doubt.
Matthew 24:9-14 (New International Version)
9"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12Because of the increase of wickedness, ...[text shortened]... will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
Manny