snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Moot Court

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 02 May 2016, 09:37 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,514
Default

I wasn't sure so I looked it up in my grammar books. Turns out quotation marks don't mean "insert straw man arguments here". So, no.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02 May 2016, 10:40 AM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coughdrops View Post
Using quotation marks is how you show that you're writing what someone is saying. It doesn't mean that you are saying "This person said exactly this." You could be saying "This is something this person might say." or "This is what they were saying if applied to a different context."

Or to put it another way, if I write "I bet next Trump will say 'We should put a wall around the middle east.'" does not mean that is something he has actually said, it was merely making a guess at what he might say.
Quotation marks DO mean that "this person said exactly this." That is their purpose. How could you possibly be "writing what someone is saying" when it wasn't what was said, or meant, or even implied? It is a lazy and dishonest tactic, and you should just stop it if you want to be taken seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02 May 2016, 02:19 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
if you want to be taken seriously.
"Well, there's your problem."

Quotation marks are allowed as this is a direct quote of Adam Savage.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03 May 2016, 01:18 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,202
Mouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue View Post
I can understand their family and friends being supportive of them, even though the mind boggles - but what I can't understand is the insistence that "now this means the government can force you to take your child to the doctor when he sneezes". There is no sense of proportion at all. This child died needlessly and he suffered for weeks. Do the parents and the enablers feel no regret? No remorse? Would they do the same thing again? If so I agree with you CD these people should not be allowed to parent children.
That's something that gets me about all the faith healing or alternative medicine cases: it's not like the kid just suddenly keeled over in a few hours and there wasn't anything the parents could have done to save them. In most of these cases, the kid in question usually suffered horribly over a period of several days. And I freely admit that I don't have kids and therefore, I may be totally off base, but I thought one of the hallmarks of good parenting was trying to keep your kid from going through horrible pain. Yeah, there are times in life, where you have to stand by and watch them learn a painful lesson they'll never forget, but don't good parents do what they can to shield their kids from pain and suffering? Wouldn't a good parent be horribly upset over seeing their kid suffer through prolonged agony over a period of days and at some point be like, "Okay this isn't working," and drag the kid to a hospital or something?

I'm reminded of an anecdote about a Christian Scientist named Suzanne Shepard as depicted in this incredibly sad article. She was a practitioner and when her six-year-old daughter became very ill, Shepard tried to treat her with the teachings of the church. But her daughter wasn't getting better and at some point, to use her words, "she asked herself if she wanted to be a good Christian Scientist and not have a daughter, or be a bad Christian Scientist and have a daughter." So she took her daughter to the ER. The daughter had appendicitis and peritonitis, either of which would have killed her, if her mother hadn't decided to be a bad Christian Scientist and take her to a hospital. After this, Shepard was naturally shaken by all this, started to wonder if maybe prayer and medicine weren't as incompatible as she thought. She tried to bring reform to the church, only to get punished by their version of excommunication.

So again, I'm really wondering why these sort of incidents don't happen more often with the parent being like "Okay we tried X. It's clearly not working," and from there, they burn rubber as they speed off to a hospital. I know the Christian Science comparisons aren't entirely accurate (parents were naturopaths), but the poor kid suffered over a period of several weeks and neither of his parents thought to, y'know, do something? Heck, they probably didn't even give him basic pain relief.

So yeah, with CD and Sue on the issue here.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03 May 2016, 01:44 AM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,890
Default

There are indeed cases in which children should be removed in cases of medical neglect, and some are so intractable that it might never be safe for the child(ren) to go back home. My dispute is with the statement, "medical neglect should result in automatic and permanent lose(sic) of custody, no matter what form of superstitious nonsense is used to justify it."

Each case is individual, and in some cases the problem may be less life-threatening and/or the parent more amenable to education. Removal of children from their families and termination of parental rights should not be done lightly or punitively, as it often punishes the children more than it does the parents, removing them from their homes, their pets, their schools, and all their extended family. Sometimes siblings even end up being separated because one foster home may not have the capacity to care for all the children in the family. That's why it's best for children if we use the least intrusive intervention possible.

The OP is a tragic story, and I can't say I disagree with the prosecution of the parents. I wish that intervention had happened in time to save the child. I just think that such situations need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03 May 2016, 02:03 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is online now
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 8,886
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouse View Post
I'm really wondering why these sort of incidents don't happen more often with the parent being like "Okay we tried X. It's clearly not working," and from there, they burn rubber as they speed off to a hospital. .
Maybe they do happen often. Cases in which the parents decide that the hospital's necessary and get there in time are unlikely to get into the national news, after all, if they get into the news at all.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03 May 2016, 02:25 AM
Beachlife!'s Avatar
Beachlife! Beachlife! is offline
 
Join Date: 22 June 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 28,369
Default

I run in some pretty alternative circles. I know plenty of parents who try all sorts of 'quackery' as their first line of defense. None of them hesitate to use modern medicine when situations get bad or fail to get better.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12 February 2018, 03:00 PM
Sooeygun Sooeygun is offline
 
Join Date: 30 May 2008
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 1,088
Default Sponsors pull support from wellness expo, David Stephan blames 'pharma trolls'

http://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/...-speaking-tour

Quote:
Two major sponsors pulled their support of a Canadian wellness expo Sunday, over the scheduling of a father convicted in the death of his son as a keynote speaker.
This guy still denies that he had anything to do with the death of his son. And he is still making money from peddling the crap that killed the little guy. So disgusting. The good news is that he has been dropped from the expos.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12 February 2018, 03:13 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Ottawa/Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 9,072
Baseball

I listened to a new article describing the efforts of the organiser of the Expo Rick Thiessen. Thiessen is the guy who finally dropped the hammer on this goofball's attendance. Thiessen, when he organised the event, only contacted health and wellness websites, and let them select their participation. As a staff of one, he based all his decisions on what was on the website. He was horrified when he learned who was presenting, and immediately dropped him.

The end result is that this expo may not go on. Enough advertisers have dropped their support, even with the cancellation of the goofball's participation. I think Thiessen is guilty of not doing his homework, and had no nefarious intent in allowing this guy to participate.

A surface scratch on a website does not equal due diligence in my mind.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Milwaukee driver hits and kills toddler, and is then shot to death UEL Social Studies 39 16 April 2015 04:24 PM
Tragic accident or murder in hot-car toddler death? snopes Police Blotter 151 30 July 2014 08:18 AM
Parents stunned union seeks $10K severance for teacher convicted for molesting son A Turtle Named Mack Social Studies 21 14 December 2013 04:22 PM
Toddler Buys Car on eBay, Parents Keep It snopes Business Bytes 13 12 July 2013 07:35 PM
Grandmother charged in death of toddler left in hot car Canuckistan Police Blotter 6 05 July 2013 07:42 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.