Terry Schiavo -- not the end, but the means

In class, there was mild discussion about Terry Schiavo. The discussion was specifically about whether or not the courts were justified in giving her husband the choice to let her live or die, and also whether or not this choice was morally acceptable.

Personally, I still believe the decision was incorrect, but that's a different topic than I want to address now.

We did not talk about the method of her death--how she died. I say this because she was not, according to her condition, incapable of surviving if given the means that every human is given: food and water. She was not given a lethal injection, or something similar. Her feeding tube was removed, they stopped giving her water, and she died from dehydration/starvation.

After the final decision to remove her feeding tube once and for all, it took her 11 days to die. Aside from a small crumb of a Communion (Catholic Eucharist), she received no food or water those 11 days. Her parents, and everyone else, weren't permitted by law to give her any kind of nourishment. I again ask the following question: why not give her a painless death such as lethal injection?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo

critical thinking vs. basic thinking

I think the reason we should have critical thinking IS because we don't want a bunch of people just making statements. I can't stand it when people base their opinions off of hearsay or a majority vote. And how do we make a good solid opinion of our own if we don't completely know what it is we're thinking about. I made my decision between republican and democrat through looking at the opinions, why the opinions are what they are and what the affects are of the opinions being acted on. And I'm not trying to say republicans are better. In this day and age, it's all based upon the lesser of two evils. Someone could have been raised being taught and/or only have ever thought about the basic things. The face arguments that divide their party from the other. Without critical thinking, someone could vote for Runner1 because they heard this or Runner2 because they heard that. Now I'm going to base these fake candidates and their opinions off of today's face dividing arguments and then economical commons. Say the differences were Runner1 is for gay marriage but what you don't know is they are not for tax drops, but Runner2 is against gay marriage and for tax drops. Now for someone who hasn't learned about critical thinking, they will go with the most common thing in their favor. Say the voter (Voter) wanted gay marriage. Sure that will effect the country around them in their own perspective's favor in the long run. Now say because of that Voter's vote, Runner1 wins. So Voter is happy! Until they find out that how it effects them in the immediate and the most potent way is not what they wanted and they are stuck with higher taxes for the next 4-8 years. ESPECIALLY TODAY we need to be careful about this. Everyone sees an evil and needs to apply the positives and negatives to themselves. This is where critical thinking comes in

thank you

I just wanted to say thank you to all who have participated in the discourse thus far-- one of my colleague ( environmental chemistry faculty) referred me to the undermentioned site for some great reading. if you have the time and energy, please do so and I am sure we will talk more in class.
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011

What Makes Global Warming True?

What makes Global Warming true?

 I've been told that Global Warming is a real problem. When I've asked what makes that statement true the common reply is, "Because a group of scientists signed a document saying that it is."

That is true. Some scientists DID sign a document, but what is the document based on?

"Strong amounts of evidence which suggest that it's real," is the reply.

Hold on though. According to Asking The Right Questions by M. Neil Browne and Stuart M. Keeley (one of the books we bought for class), all that evidence CAN do is SUGGEST. It is not a conclusion. So let us put on our "critical thinking caps" and stay open to the fact that Global Warming may not be an absolute, despite popular belief.

  

"we need workers and skills and not a bunch of theories and ivory tower postulations"

I think we need a little of both. Skills and workers are the hands and legs of every community as academia is the brain of every community. A person needs both their mind and muscles to function ideally, so I would think a community needs smart thinkers and knowledgable workers to function ideally. If we only had theories and ivory tower postulations, we would all have great ideas but nothing would ever get done. If it was all just workers, businesses would excel in their production but they would lack improvements, innovations, and organization. It would suck having one without the other.

"why critical thinking as oppose to simply teaching the basics"

That's like asking why not live the good life as opposed to just dreaming of one. Everyone dreams of living their idea of a good life but few really do live it. Its takes more than dreams to get you where you want to be, to have all the things you want to have, to become the person you want to be. Just like it takes more than knowing the basics to be socially literate. The basics only gets a person so far. I believe critical thinking is a skill not many people have learned to aquire and those who have, do not even use it correctly. I must admit I more than likely fall into that category myself, so this class does hold that particular interest for me.

I think most people dont care to broaden that knowledge. I think critical thinking makes people fearful of raising issues that most of us dont care to think about. Honestly, even I find myself avoiding certain questions and issues because it takes me out of my comfort zone. I dont want to face the harsh realities of the world beyond my own. I've grown tired of the arguments and tensions, of always having to defend my own personal beliefs. In more ways than one, that is one aspect of this class I really do dread. I don't have the energy to argue at this point. I'm more than willing to listen to others point of views and opinions, and even consider them myself. At the end, though, if you ask for my views, I expect the same respect. I don't like it when someone is drop dead set on trying to change my views. If it doesn't happen, the person should learn to accept it and just let it go.

So far, the books for this class have intrigued me and provoked different ideas in me about how I see things. I still do not desire to debate on any of these issues, but I like hearing the different views. I can't say I feel very strongly about any one of the issues raised. Personally, I think every issue has a compromise, a middle ground. They are not always the best but better than the extremes of either/or, in my opinion.

I want to know why we had to buy a book on globalization and a book on the 13 american arguments. Its not that I don't find the books informative, its just that they seem much better suited to a humanities class, not a critical thinking class, the thirteen american arguments paints all republicans in a poor light and makes demicrats look almost "godly" I've read ahead a little bit and it seems very biased. Globalization is a very interesting book, its informative and thats great, but I dont understand what globalization has to do with critical thinking, crital thinking is taking what we hear and looking at it objectively.

Now that I have that off my chest.

I find the class "debates" exciting its very interesting how everyone is using opinions to back everything up, I know I do it myself. I also realize that there is no right answer to a lot of issues thats why we have the our system set up the way it is, its set up as a majority rules. For example even trial by jury its always the majority that rules your sentence, voting for a president is the same thing its what the MAJORITY wants! Not whats right or wrong.

I'd like to go back to the first class that we had when we talked about the 2nd amendment, something thats been bothering me is that the amendment says:

A well regulated MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well the reason I caps all of militia is because militia means:

An army composed of ORDINARY CITIZENS rather than PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS.

Something to think about when putting the second amendment into some thought when you have nothing else better to do. :D