2014-02-08 17:00 GMT+01:00, John Clark <[email protected]>: > The invention of language was obviously of great benefit to the species > called Homo sapiens, but like all tools it is not perfect and sometimes the > brain can waste a great deal of processing power spinning its wheels over > questions of words rather than ideas. For example, a recent poll showed > that 70% of people in the USA thought that if a dying patient agreed then > doctors should be allowed to "end the patient's life by some painless > means"; however only 51% thought that doctors should be allowed to help a > dying patient who wanted to die "commit suicide".
No. there is no linguistic confusion there. People try to obtain as much information as they can from what is said. There are infinite possible degrees and situations in which both phrases can be applied. But both sets must not the same. What people want to tell you with that is that the subject is something too sensible that only the people directly involved can judge, and that these situations can not be objectivated with short words, definitions and can not be regulated with laws and external judges. It is something intimate and moral, like many situations in the intimacy. Usually these things in the past were kept secret among the familly, the physician and the patient. Never even the most totalitarian state had though to stick the nose to regulate it until recenty. Simple the information carried in that phrase does not have enough information to decide either one or the other. They guess as much as possible, imagine what real situation both phrases may apply and they respond yes or no because they are forced to give either one or the other response. The question and the options to respond are as crazy and stupid and shallow-minded as is the time we live. Then, don´t expect much form the answers. So it is not a matter of linguistic brain load of stupid people running the stupid brain produced by stupid evolution. It is a tragedy of out stupid rationalist age of yes/no idiots, stupid legistators, power hungry politicians and stupid universitary researchers. Another example would be > those who DON'T believe in a omnipotent omniscient intelligent conscious > being who created the universe and is responsible for morality but DO > believe in "God". > Obviously they believe in a non omnipotent omniscent god. Gnostics believe in something like this. Gnosticism according to Voegelin, is the true religion of modernity. > John K Clark > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
