Reply With Quote
I wasn't blaming the doctors now, was I? I was asked about there oath, I asked if they did harm.
You coyly asked if the doctors did harm. It's on this page.
I wasn't blaming the doctors now, was I? I was asked about there oath, I asked if they did harm.
Why did you ask?
Just for fun, the original, translated:
I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by prac ioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.
Go back and read that exchange.
Already did. An innuendo is hiding behind the question mark. That innuendo relies on x. You were arguing not x. See the dissonance?
If you buff your coy insinuations and lame excuses to a high gloss, eventually your face becomes visible.
What type of conditions were the prisoners held in, that prisoners would able to cause severe beatings without stopping anything?
What about the pictures from Abu Ghraib? You think that was only an isolated incident?
What about the former military who have come out and confirmed some of these instances?
What about the usage of advanced interrogation that has been admitted to by the US, which has been shown to cause psychological issues and confirmed by numerous experts?
Determining if a person is coherent enough to be interrogated isn't quite prescribing regimens for the good of the patient.I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
Tell us WC, why should we believe you know anything about electronics? Have you ever provided a degree to us? Can you PROVE you know... well, anything?
Oh, and laughing about using the "Innocent before guilty" line in a thread about SUSPECTS being interrogated, beaten, etc etc.
Look. The primary accepted idea behind the oath is "do no harm." That's why I asked if harm was done. It's just that ing simple.
Well, was harm done?
I'm only saying there is no direct evidence since we have heard reports of these other things too.
Abu Ghraib? It probably was an isolated incident, and if not, it isn't accepted. Those individuals were prosecuted, were they not?
As for military individuals confirming? I forget what was discussed before about that. In forget the credibility of the situation. I forget what they were calling torture. Was it just a hang nail?
I don't know. The insinuation was the oath was violated. That why I was asking if harm was done by the doctors.
You show me.
You're pissing me off asking what appears to be stupid questions regarding the intent of my words.
please link the hang nail info you keep referring to.
To clear up uncertainty raised by the links you posted. I see.
Post 15 I was pointing out the subjective nature:
I was asking a rhetorical question. Referring to that again.The term "severe physical pain" is subjective. With the Pussification of America, which you seem to accept, how long will it be before a hangnail is considered "severe physical pain?"
Is it that hard to keep up?
its easy to keep up with you. one thread you claimed "photoshop", this one you claim "hangnail".
yes or no?
Poising an idea for inducing thought and claiming such things as real, are not comparable.
No. You cannot keep up. You are prone to a biased perception.
well.....i don't want to be biased, so......i'll ride with you on your photoshop and hangnail claim. lol
You are biased because I am not claiming to be true, what I post as a remark, to consider as a possibility.
well....you are the one who said he knew where all the nukes were. lol
Again, and not surprising, a very inaccurate statement from you.
And I'm saying that if we put these prisoners into a situation where they can suffer severely, then we are still at fault.
You don't think former military members are credible? Interesting.
Why do you keep trying to insinuate that the charges are a "hang nail". As pointed out above, they involve broken bones, severe beatings, and psychological stressors.
The US has even admitted to the psychological stressors (and yet, has stated they are not "severe", a wishy-washy word that means nothing legally. Of course, they knew this, which is why they used it.)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
