Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lol.
Talk about ad hominem.
And in response to a direct, on-topic question.
Figures.
Ad hominem begets more ad hominem.
If QW wants to dismiss the legitimacy of M.D.'s & D.O.'s in the field of psychiatry and Ph.D.'s in the field of psychology then his credentials are fair game.
I am dismissing the consensus, and saying that they are not scientists. As for the degrees, they are nothing more than pieces of paper, and are only as useful as the people who issue them.
Of course I'm trying to squelch her point of view. That's the point.
I'm NOT however, violating her right to free speech. And I will exercise mine as well.
I would never ask you not to exercise yours. However, I do not believe squelching her point of view is the objective. The objective is to convince her that WE are right.
Immie
In the history of internet message boards I would imagine the rarest thing in the world is someone having their minds changed. Frankly, I don't think Madeline is capable of such self growth.
I don't think it's completely fair to characterize the MD's views as "personal". Yes, your instructions as a patient should be respected, and no, the MDs values should not override them. But I'm sure that to many MDs, a no-blood bracelet in certain circumstances reads like a do not rescusitate order on a healthy, middle aged person. Hard to abide by.
Did you know that transfusions during routine surgery significantly prolong recovery?
Did you know that a no blood order has an affect on the doctor performing surgery, and that he is significantly less likely to make a mistake?
In other words, it is his personal opinion that blood is necessary, and it is not based on what is best for the patient.
For the 15th time: no one on here has proof of anything. What we have is the claim of one plaintiff. As I have said before, I want to hear both sides of the story.
I fully defend a school from not awarding a degree to someone who fails to meet the standards. It appears Ms. Keeton has a penchant to editorialize in her academic writing. That is sub-par and anyone that has made it out of English 101 knows that.
And again, I don't take umbrage with Ms. Keeton's religious beliefs. I take umbrage with her belief that she can introduce it into her academic career when it is not germane to the issue.
Her beliefs about homosexuality being a lifestyle choice are at odds with the medical community.
Here is the problem as I see it. She stated in the articles that she would not do that. Made it very clear that she would not. It seems unfair of you to accuse her of being a liar when you know nothing at all about her.
I would have a problem if she said that she would "convert" homosexuals, but as far as we know, she has never said that. Without evidence contradicting that, you are wrong to assume that she is a liar.
She is 24 years old and strong willed. That doesn't make her hateful. The hateful people are the ones that would deny her opportunities because they disagree with her beliefs whether they be religious beliefs as it appears in this case or they simply be a belief that homosexuality is curable.
And I will repeat. It is hypocritical of this school to insist that she attend a "re-education" camp in order to brainwash her simply because they are afraid she may someday do that to a student. That right there is the definition of hypocrisy.
Immie
It goes beyond that. If Ms. Keeton was introducing her personal opinion into academic writing, I could see how that would be problematic. That is poor writing at the graduate level.
I don't know if that is what happened, but if it did and the school tried to remediate the issue and that is what Keeton is suing for, I don't think she has a leg to stand on.
Academic writing at the graduate level is not for OPED pieces.
That overwhelming consensus is not based on science, it is based on anecdotal evidence. The problem with psychology is that it is far from being scientific, so arguing that a bunch of people who are not scientists have some sort of scientific consensus is ludicrous.
Psychiatry and psychology are not based in the medical sciences? Really? Now you are just pumping gas on Mars. Of course, I knew you guys would simply dismiss any evidence or statement from the professionals that contradicted your personal beliefs. You all are nothing if not predictable.
You can dismiss it if you want. The medical community does not and your opinion is simply that.
As I stated, and proved, the consensus of the medical community is that homosexuality is not a choice.
So if Ms. Keeton was claiming something to the contrary, she was in the wrong.
Really?
Were Copernicus and Galileo wrong when they went against the consensus in regards to Heliocentrism? How about Darwin and his Origin of the Species? Einstein and the Theory of Relativity?
Suppression of free thought is contradictory to progress.
Immie
For the 15th time: no one on here has proof of anything. What we have is the claim of one plaintiff. As I have said before, I want to hear both sides of the story.
I fully defend a school from not awarding a degree to someone who fails to meet the standards. It appears Ms. Keeton has a penchant to editorialize in her academic writing. That is sub-par and anyone that has made it out of English 101 knows that.
And again, I don't take umbrage with Ms. Keeton's religious beliefs. I take umbrage with her belief that she can introduce it into her academic career when it is not germane to the issue.
Her beliefs about homosexuality being a lifestyle choice are at odds with the medical community.
Here is the problem as I see it. She stated in the articles that she would not do that. Made it very clear that she would not. It seems unfair of you to accuse her of being a liar when you know nothing at all about her.
I would have a problem if she said that she would "convert" homosexuals, but as far as we know, she has never said that. Without evidence contradicting that, you are wrong to assume that she is a liar.
She is 24 years old and strong willed. That doesn't make her hateful. The hateful people are the ones that would deny her opportunities because they disagree with her beliefs whether they be religious beliefs as it appears in this case or they simply be a belief that homosexuality is curable.
And I will repeat. It is hypocritical of this school to insist that she attend a "re-education" camp in order to brainwash her simply because they are afraid she may someday do that to a student. That right there is the definition of hypocrisy.
Immie
It goes beyond that. If Ms. Keeton was introducing her personal opinion into academic writing, I could see how that would be problematic. That is poor writing at the graduate level.
I don't know if that is what happened, but if it did and the school tried to remediate the issue and that is what Keeton is suing for, I don't think she has a leg to stand on.
Academic writing at the graduate level is not for OPED pieces.
"B-b-but...it's not ABOUT religion!"
Despite the fact that both sides have stated that it is.
Hello.
Well, to be accurate, GTH, is correct, we have only the word of the plaintiff about those facts. I suspect that Anderson-Wiley will vehemently deny that accusation especially after the firing of Ms. Sherrod last week.
Immie
In that case, it's still about religion because the suit claims it.
Glen Beck doesn't have a bachelor's degree let alone a doctoral degree. An honorary doctorate isn't a degree. You can basically frame it or wipe your ass with it. Either way, it's useless in academia.
I also never claimed that a Ph.D. = scientist.
It does equal "expert in your field". The Ph.D. degree covers everything from English to Organic Chemistry.
In regards to your earlier dismissal of the consensus of 150,000 psychologists that homosexuality is a choice, you can move the goal posts all you want. There really isn't any "bench science" when it comes to behavioral science. That doesn't mean the issue can't be addressed by the experts in the field. There is no definitive test to diagnose schizophrenia. It doesn't mean we can't diagnose it.
So retreat to your anecdotes. It doesn't matter to me. I knew you and your compatriots would never accept the facts of the matter. I have done what I was asked to do: prove that the expert consensus is that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice.
But hey, go grap a Ph.D. or an M.D. and start researching in order to refute that.
Your Nobel Prize will await.
Interesting that you believe that.
Now here are the facts on what is in the College's handbook as regards graduation from the College of Education with a Masters
School Counseling Concentration
48 semester hours of academic work (39 hours must be completed at ASU)
3 semester hours credit in Exceptional Children
3 semester hours credit in Educational Technology
2 semesters of intensive internship in a school setting
Completion of a professional portfolio during the capstone course
Successful completion of the Georgia Certification Exam examination will yield school certification in the state of Georgia. (For candidates without a Bachelors degree in Education, the PRAXIS I must also be taken.) The student applies to the ASU Certification Officer for certification after completion of all requirements for the degree.
http://www.aug.edu/registrar_va/catalog/2006/cat0607.pdf page 113
By the way re: Your statement that this isn't about religion:
When Keeton asked why her biblical ethical views would disqualify her competence as a counselor, Anderson-Wiley at one point responded, "Christians see this population as sinners." Though Keeton stated that all people are sinners, including herself, Anderson-Wiley told her that she had a choice of standing by the Bible or by the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics. Keeton chose the Bible
- This was from the original article
Anderson-Wiley is an associate professor who also oversees student education and discipline and is therefor an employee of a public institution expressing religious discrimination.
Of course credit hours are factored into graduation requirements. To get credit hours, you have to pass the class. Not just pay tuition and show up. That's the issue here. Did Keeton meet the standards? If not, then why not and was it fair?
Also, the OP is heavily biased towards Keeton and as it stands, all we have right now is the word of Keeton. So I am not ready to buy that as the (pun intended) gospel truth.
I want to hear what the school has to say on this. If Keeton is being punished for simply expressing her opinion in class or saying something deemed "not politically correct" by the school, then I think she is in the right and the school is in the wrong. However, if she was being failed because she couldn't write a research paper without turning it into an OPED then I think the school is right.
It's that simple.
On what do you base your theory of her turning it into an OPED paper? She may write very well and support her point of view with pertinent information.
My understanding is that it was not all that long ago when homosexuality was not believed to be genetic.
Science and Homosexuality
The American Psychiatric Association
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, also known as the DSM, is the official list of mental disorders that all mental health professionals refer to when diagnosing patients.
The first version, released in 1952, listed homosexuality as a sociopath personality disturbance. In 1968, the second version (DSM II) reclassified homosexuality as a sexual deviancy. Soon afterward, gay protestors began picketing at the APAs annual conventions, demanding that homosexuality be removed from the list completely. In 1973, after intensive debate and numerous disturbances by gay activists, the APA decided to remove homosexuality from its next manual (DSM IV) completely.
What followed was a swarm of outrage from psychiatrists within the APA who disagreed with the decision and demanded that the issue be reconsidered. In 1974, a referendum was called and approximately 40 percent of the APAs membership voted to put homosexuality back into the DSM IV. Since a majority was not achieved to reverse the decision, homosexuality remains omitted from the APAs Diagnostic and Statistical manual.
Many in the scientific community have criticized the APAs decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM IV, claiming its motives were more political than scientific. Dr. Ronald Bayer, author of the book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry writes:
The entire process, from the first confrontation organized by gay demonstrators to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations about how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in sober discussion of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times.15
more at site.
1973? Hell, Roe v. Wade was decided before this issue was... wait... has this issue been decided?
Even the American Psychological Association asserts that:
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age.17 (emphasis added).
Note: I am not giving this site my stamp of approval. I don't know anything about it, but it caught my eye.
Immie
Here is the problem as I see it. She stated in the articles that she would not do that. Made it very clear that she would not. It seems unfair of you to accuse her of being a liar when you know nothing at all about her.
I would have a problem if she said that she would "convert" homosexuals, but as far as we know, she has never said that. Without evidence contradicting that, you are wrong to assume that she is a liar.
She is 24 years old and strong willed. That doesn't make her hateful. The hateful people are the ones that would deny her opportunities because they disagree with her beliefs whether they be religious beliefs as it appears in this case or they simply be a belief that homosexuality is curable.
And I will repeat. It is hypocritical of this school to insist that she attend a "re-education" camp in order to brainwash her simply because they are afraid she may someday do that to a student. That right there is the definition of hypocrisy.
Immie
It goes beyond that. If Ms. Keeton was introducing her personal opinion into academic writing, I could see how that would be problematic. That is poor writing at the graduate level.
I don't know if that is what happened, but if it did and the school tried to remediate the issue and that is what Keeton is suing for, I don't think she has a leg to stand on.
Academic writing at the graduate level is not for OPED pieces.
So, what you are saying is that graduate students are supposed to recite the drivel that academia tells them to repeat and that any deviation from such is grounds for immediate dismissal?
Maybe I don't want to bother going to graduate school after all.
Immie
Ad hominem begets more ad hominem.
If QW wants to dismiss the legitimacy of M.D.'s & D.O.'s in the field of psychiatry and Ph.D.'s in the field of psychology then his credentials are fair game.
I am dismissing the consensus, and saying that they are not scientists. As for the degrees, they are nothing more than pieces of paper, and are only as useful as the people who issue them.
Physicians are not scientists? They don't do clinical and actual research?
Okay, whatever.
Your opinion on what is and what is not a scientist isn't terribly relevant anyways. The scientific community will march on without you and physicians will continue to contribute to it.
Why can't I use anecdotes? That is exactly what that consensus you insist trumps me is based on, anecdotal evidence. If it is not point to some sort of actual data that backs up the consensus. That should not be hard, because you supposedly have science on your side.
Please, provide a single piece of evidence, not of opinion, that homosexuality is a state of being. If all you have is a consensus of opinion you have nothing, which is what I said from the beginning.
If you can I will admit you are right, and I am wrong. That should give you a little motivation.
It goes beyond that. If Ms. Keeton was introducing her personal opinion into academic writing, I could see how that would be problematic. That is poor writing at the graduate level.
I don't know if that is what happened, but if it did and the school tried to remediate the issue and that is what Keeton is suing for, I don't think she has a leg to stand on.
Academic writing at the graduate level is not for OPED pieces.
So, what you are saying is that graduate students are supposed to recite the drivel that academia tells them to repeat and that any deviation from such is grounds for immediate dismissal?
Maybe I don't want to bother going to graduate school after all.
Immie
No. They do need to be able to write something that is sufficiently stronger than "This is what I think".
There is a reason academic writing is considered rigorous. Any jackass can spout off their opinion. It takes a degree of education to formulate a well thought out and supported paper.
Well, to be accurate, GTH, is correct, we have only the word of the plaintiff about those facts. I suspect that Anderson-Wiley will vehemently deny that accusation especially after the firing of Ms. Sherrod last week.
Immie
In that case, it's still about religion because the suit claims it.
So everything a plaintiff claims is automatically true?
I don't think so.
I'll bet you spend a significant amount of time bitching about trial lawyers too, huh?
I don't think it's completely fair to characterize the MD's views as "personal". Yes, your instructions as a patient should be respected, and no, the MDs values should not override them. But I'm sure that to many MDs, a no-blood bracelet in certain circumstances reads like a do not rescusitate order on a healthy, middle aged person. Hard to abide by.
Did you know that transfusions during routine surgery significantly prolong recovery?
Did you know that a no blood order has an affect on the doctor performing surgery, and that he is significantly less likely to make a mistake?
In other words, it is his personal opinion that blood is necessary, and it is not based on what is best for the patient.
Did you ever stop to think that might be because any surgery where a person's hemoglobin drops below the trigger point that mandates tranfusion is probably a life or limb situation?
Ever hear of the "confounding" effect on a conclusion?
Believe me, I just scrubbed four months worth of transfusion records for my institution. Surgeons try not to transfuse blood, when they do something has gone wrong.
So, what you are saying is that graduate students are supposed to recite the drivel that academia tells them to repeat and that any deviation from such is grounds for immediate dismissal?
Maybe I don't want to bother going to graduate school after all.
Immie
No. They do need to be able to write something that is sufficiently stronger than "This is what I think".
There is a reason academic writing is considered rigorous. Any jackass can spout off their opinion. It takes a degree of education to formulate a well thought out and supported paper.
Yet, it appears that the issue here is exactly "what she thinks" and the fact that it does not coincide with what her professors think.
Not how she writes it, but the fact that she thinks it or they would not be forcing her into a "re-education camp".
Immie
I am dismissing the consensus, and saying that they are not scientists. As for the degrees, they are nothing more than pieces of paper, and are only as useful as the people who issue them.
Physicians are not scientists? They don't do clinical and actual research?
Okay, whatever.
Your opinion on what is and what is not a scientist isn't terribly relevant anyways. The scientific community will march on without you and physicians will continue to contribute to it.
No, psychologists are not scientists. Why do you keep attacking things I do not say?
Also, anyone who ignores data just because it does not fit his theory is not a scientist, he is a hack.
So, what you are saying is that graduate students are supposed to recite the drivel that academia tells them to repeat and that any deviation from such is grounds for immediate dismissal?
Maybe I don't want to bother going to graduate school after all.
Immie
No. They do need to be able to write something that is sufficiently stronger than "This is what I think".
There is a reason academic writing is considered rigorous. Any jackass can spout off their opinion. It takes a degree of education to formulate a well thought out and supported paper.
Yet, it appears that the issue here is exactly "what she thinks" and the fact that it does not coincide with what her professors think.
Not how she writes it, but the fact that she thinks it or they would not be forcing her into a "re-education camp".
Immie
In that case, it's still about religion because the suit claims it.
So everything a plaintiff claims is automatically true?
I don't think so.
I'll bet you spend a significant amount of time bitching about trial lawyers too, huh?
I didn't say it was automatically true. That's the claim, though. No mention of an op ed.
Except by you. Apparently it's a dream that's near and dear to you.
Did you know that transfusions during routine surgery significantly prolong recovery?
Did you know that a no blood order has an affect on the doctor performing surgery, and that he is significantly less likely to make a mistake?
In other words, it is his personal opinion that blood is necessary, and it is not based on what is best for the patient.
Did you ever stop to think that might be because any surgery where a person's hemoglobin drops below the trigger point that mandates tranfusion is probably a life or limb situation?
Ever hear of the "confounding" effect on a conclusion?
Believe me, I just scrubbed four months worth of transfusion records for my institution. Surgeons try not to transfuse blood, when they do something has gone wrong.
Simple question.
Do blood transfusions generally result in a longer hospital stay than non transfusions? There is enough trauma data out there for you to give a good answer to that if you look.
