Ever have a tube shoved up your nose and into your stomach?

[candycorn]

Here is CA, foie gras was made illegal because the nanny staters in CA decided force feeding was animal cruelty...and here the Feds are force feeding GITMO prisoners.

Apparently geese are more important than people.

Any word on what happens to the goose post feeding?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By that definition, every prisoner in the country who is currently interred somewhere is being tortured if they want to leave and can't?

If they are not getting enough exercise, calories, social interaction, etc...

Seriously? You don't see the difference between locking people up because they are considered dangerous and forcing them to stay alive when they choose not to eat? I actually believe prison is torture, and I see the difference here.

The right wing lunatics have gotten comical as of late.

I would rather be comical than desperate.

As soon as we start beneficially waterboarding patients in the hospital, I'll agree with you.

Your comparison is asinine. Someday when you're older and hopefully wiser, you'll understand that.

Once again, think about consent. If you were ordered to force feed a mentally competent patient against his will would you do so?

Okay...so whatever your point is; what it comes down to is whether Obama should just let people die by starving themselves; right?

I am guessing you think he should just turn off the lights and let the guy die.

I disagree.

I think if you were a guard at one of these installations, you'd be all for force feeding; the sight of a person reverting to his or her birth weight in their 20's and 30's is not something you forget easily; if ever. I haven't.

That is their choice, not yours.

 

[boedicca]

Here is CA, foie gras was made illegal because the nanny staters in CA decided force feeding was animal cruelty...and here the Feds are force feeding GITMO prisoners.

Apparently geese are more important than people.

Any word on what happens to the goose post feeding?

You mean you don't know that the geese are slaughtered for food?

That's what happens to animals that are bred for the purpose of being eaten.

 

[FA_Q2]

Of that I have no doubt.

What you're describing is an NG tube procedure by which liquid nutrition is introduced to the digestive track through a tube that goes through the nose (Naso) and into the stomach (Gastric). We do this for comatose, sedated, or patients who have acute injuries that prevent them from eating foods conventionaly.

As for the amount of pain involved, you are, in fact, ignorant. There is hardly any pain at all as I have had this done to me before. When I was in nursing school--we actually did it on each other in the class. In that environment, it hurt the administrator more than it hurt the "patient". BTW...I had my voice box photographed the other day...and I lived to tell about it.

You know, it may just be possible that Obama does some things that aren't blatantly evil.

Irrelevant. The pain is not the issue.

What you are all missing is the idea of this being a ‘torture’ method has nothing to do with pain. It has to do with the complete removal of free will. It is a pretty terrible thing when you lose even the ability to choose to feed yourself or not.

By that definition, every prisoner in the country who is currently interred somewhere is being tortured if they want to leave and can't?

If they are not getting enough exercise, calories, social interaction, etc...

The right wing lunatics have gotten comical as of late.

No, not even close. I should not be surprised that the best you can do is resort to insults though.

You have no concept of what I stated. You really need to learn to read just what is typed rather than your asinine assertions of what you are assuming that others stated.

BTW, he provides you with a credible source declaring such a practice was unethical and amounted to ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” while you have provided nothing. You do realize that Bush used that same defense; he claimed that we did not commit torture because he decided that waterboarding did not fit the definition. You bought that, didn’t you?

As soon as we start beneficially waterboarding patients in the hospital, I'll agree with you.

Your comparison is asinine. Someday when you're older and hopefully wiser, you'll understand that.

The comparison ahs nothing to do with the fact that the practice has been declared a toture method but this time you simply don’t want to address that. Again, links and evidence brought to the table and you have….

Nothing.

I did not refute that. I just stated that the whole line about painful or not swallowing is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with ethics or legality of the action. All that is in question is whether or not force feeding someone against their will fits that criteria.

Okay...so whatever your point is; what it comes down to is whether Obama should just let people die by starving themselves; right?

I am guessing you think he should just turn off the lights and let the guy die.

I disagree.

I think if you were a guard at one of these installations, you'd be all for force feeding; the sight of a person reverting to his or her birth weight in their 20's and 30's is not something you forget easily; if ever. I haven't.

No, I would not. They are making a decision. I could care less. What concerns me are my actions and the actions of our government. When we water boarded prisoners, WE WERE DOING IT TO THEM. Here, we are offering the food. If they choose not to consume it, so be it.

Whether or not the images are haunting is irrelevant.

 

[PredFan]

I was in the bed next to someone who had a tube inserted voluntarily a few years ago. Frankly, waterboarding sounds a lot less painful to me.

The U.S. military has been force-feeding some of the detainees, a practice described as torture by some of those previously subject to it. Today, the UN’s commissioner for human rights weighed in, his spokesperson saying that “if it's perceived as torture or inhuman treatment -- and it's the case, it's painful -- then it is prohibited by international law.” The stance, he explained, is based on a 1991 declaration by the World Medical Association that forced feeding is “never ethically acceptable.”
Will the Nobel Peace Prize winning president who promised the U.S. wouldn’t torture stop torturing? Or will he use his own definition of torture, as his predecessor George W. Bush did? Or will he and his apologists just ignore it, like every other promise broken and right violated by this president?

President Obama Won?t Just Close Gitmo, But Will He Stop the Torturing? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

No but I've done it to hundreds of patients. I think, from what I've observed that it's more uncomfortable than it is painful.

 

[candycorn]

Irrelevant. The pain is not the issue.

What you are all missing is the idea of this being a ‘torture’ method has nothing to do with pain. It has to do with the complete removal of free will. It is a pretty terrible thing when you lose even the ability to choose to feed yourself or not.

By that definition, every prisoner in the country who is currently interred somewhere is being tortured if they want to leave and can't?

If they are not getting enough exercise, calories, social interaction, etc...

The right wing lunatics have gotten comical as of late.

No, not even close. I should not be surprised that the best you can do is resort to insults though.

You have no concept of what I stated. You really need to learn to read just what is typed rather than your asinine assertions of what you are assuming that others stated.

The comparison ahs nothing to do with the fact that the practice has been declared a toture method but this time you simply don’t want to address that. Again, links and evidence brought to the table and you have….

Nothing.

You're insulted if you're a right wing lunatic.

You brought up free will...not me. Depriving someone of the free will is torture?

What is your alternative...just let the guys die? How so very humane.... Sorry but you're being a dumbass...and I have the responsibility to the truth to call you one.

I did not refute that. I just stated that the whole line about painful or not swallowing is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with ethics or legality of the action. All that is in question is whether or not force feeding someone against their will fits that criteria.

Okay...so whatever your point is; what it comes down to is whether Obama should just let people die by starving themselves; right?

I am guessing you think he should just turn off the lights and let the guy die.

I disagree.

I think if you were a guard at one of these installations, you'd be all for force feeding; the sight of a person reverting to his or her birth weight in their 20's and 30's is not something you forget easily; if ever. I haven't.

No, I would not. They are making a decision. I could care less. What concerns me are my actions and the actions of our government. When we water boarded prisoners, WE WERE DOING IT TO THEM. Here, we are offering the food. If they choose not to consume it, so be it.

Whether or not the images are haunting is irrelevant.

Not only is your stance cruel, it's politically naive. I tend to think feeding prisoners is a good idea. Your mileage may vary. I'm happy we live in a nation whose chief executive errs on the side of keeping people alive while all the while holding the accused accountable for their actions--the circumstances of which not withstanding.

 

[candycorn]

Here is CA, foie gras was made illegal because the nanny staters in CA decided force feeding was animal cruelty...and here the Feds are force feeding GITMO prisoners.

Apparently geese are more important than people.

Any word on what happens to the goose post feeding?

You mean you don't know that the geese are slaughtered for food?

That's what happens to animals that are bred for the purpose of being eaten.

It's where the vegetarian/vegan argument goes off the rails; as animals homosapiens are members of the food chain. There is nothing wrong with eating meat since other animals do it.

As for the context of our "debate" here, I'm not sure what your context is...you want to eat the prisoners?

 

[candycorn]

By that definition, every prisoner in the country who is currently interred somewhere is being tortured if they want to leave and can't?

If they are not getting enough exercise, calories, social interaction, etc...

Seriously? You don't see the difference between locking people up because they are considered dangerous and forcing them to stay alive when they choose not to eat? I actually believe prison is torture, and I see the difference here.

Just commenting on the point that the deprivation of free will is torture.

The right wing lunatics have gotten comical as of late.

I would rather be comical than desperate.

Congrats, you're both.

As soon as we start beneficially waterboarding patients in the hospital, I'll agree with you.

Your comparison is asinine. Someday when you're older and hopefully wiser, you'll understand that.

Once again, think about consent. If you were ordered to force feed a mentally competent patient against his will would you do so?

Yes.

Okay...so whatever your point is; what it comes down to is whether Obama should just let people die by starving themselves; right?

I am guessing you think he should just turn off the lights and let the guy die.

I disagree.

I think if you were a guard at one of these installations, you'd be all for force feeding; the sight of a person reverting to his or her birth weight in their 20's and 30's is not something you forget easily; if ever. I haven't.

That is their choice, not yours.

The insanity of the right wing loons to automatically assume the opposite posture of Obama has gotten theatrically comical.

 

[FA_Q2]

You're insulted if you're a right wing lunatic.

You brought up free will...not me. Depriving someone of the free will is torture?

What is your alternative...just let the guys die? How so very humane.... Sorry but you're being a dumbass...and I have the responsibility to the truth to call you one.

I was not insulted, just commenting on the fact that you have not brought anything to the table other than insults. Here, you are seen continuing such a tactic. If you are not aware, this speaks volumes about the validity of your statements and it does not speak well of them.

Not only is your stance cruel, it's politically naive. I tend to think feeding prisoners is a good idea. Your mileage may vary. I'm happy we live in a nation whose chief executive errs on the side of keeping people alive while all the while holding the accused accountable for their actions--the circumstances of which not withstanding.

So, you are rescinding your last position that you stated here:

Just let them starve to death...problem solved.

Can't say I disagree. As I heard on here one time, play a stupid game, win a stupid prize. Or as I heard at a bar not long ago...

"When the gates are down and the signals are flashing; the whistle is screaming in vain....
And you stay on the tracks; ignoring the facts, you can't blame the wreck on the train."

This is what happens when you pull for whatever Obama did without having any actual conviction. You end up contradicting yourself.

Now what were you calling me again? I think you actually looked in the mirror for that one…

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I was in the bed next to someone who had a tube inserted voluntarily a few years ago. Frankly, waterboarding sounds a lot less painful to me.

The U.S. military has been force-feeding some of the detainees, a practice described as torture by some of those previously subject to it. Today, the UN’s commissioner for human rights weighed in, his spokesperson saying that “if it's perceived as torture or inhuman treatment -- and it's the case, it's painful -- then it is prohibited by international law.” The stance, he explained, is based on a 1991 declaration by the World Medical Association that forced feeding is “never ethically acceptable.”
Will the Nobel Peace Prize winning president who promised the U.S. wouldn’t torture stop torturing? Or will he use his own definition of torture, as his predecessor George W. Bush did? Or will he and his apologists just ignore it, like every other promise broken and right violated by this president?

President Obama Won?t Just Close Gitmo, But Will He Stop the Torturing? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

No but I've done it to hundreds of patients. I think, from what I've observed that it's more uncomfortable than it is painful.

Yep...and i'm living proof of your statement. Uncomfortable? Yes. Painful? No.
I can honestly say that puking your guts up after a hard night of partying is way worse.

 

[candycorn]

You're insulted if you're a right wing lunatic.

You brought up free will...not me. Depriving someone of the free will is torture?

What is your alternative...just let the guys die? How so very humane.... Sorry but you're being a dumbass...and I have the responsibility to the truth to call you one.

I was not insulted, just commenting on the fact that you have not brought anything to the table other than insults. Here, you are seen continuing such a tactic. If you are not aware, this speaks volumes about the validity of your statements and it does not speak well of them.

If one is being ridiculous; as you and most of the Obama haters have been on this and nearly every other topic, you deserve to be ridiculed. Sorry.

Not only is your stance cruel, it's politically naive. I tend to think feeding prisoners is a good idea. Your mileage may vary. I'm happy we live in a nation whose chief executive errs on the side of keeping people alive while all the while holding the accused accountable for their actions--the circumstances of which not withstanding.

So, you are rescinding your last position that you stated here:

Just let them starve to death...problem solved.

Can't say I disagree. As I heard on here one time, play a stupid game, win a stupid prize. Or as I heard at a bar not long ago...

"When the gates are down and the signals are flashing; the whistle is screaming in vain....
And you stay on the tracks; ignoring the facts, you can't blame the wreck on the train."

This is what happens when you pull for whatever Obama did without having any actual conviction. You end up contradicting yourself.

Well, I didn't develop my point that well; I'll admit. If you want to kill yourself in your cell, you can just run headfirst into a wall and pretty well end your life. There is nothing that we can do to prevent it is what I should have written after that.

You got me on that one.

Now what were you calling me again? I think you actually looked in the mirror for that one…

If you're being moronic, I'll call you a moron. Sorry.

Just to purposely sit there and watch someone wither away is flat out wrong when you can do something to stop it. If you don't understand it, you really need to look at yourself in the mirror and wonder where you went off the rails.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I was in the bed next to someone who had a tube inserted voluntarily a few years ago. Frankly, waterboarding sounds a lot less painful to me.

The U.S. military has been force-feeding some of the detainees, a practice described as torture by some of those previously subject to it. Today, the UN’s commissioner for human rights weighed in, his spokesperson saying that “if it's perceived as torture or inhuman treatment -- and it's the case, it's painful -- then it is prohibited by international law.” The stance, he explained, is based on a 1991 declaration by the World Medical Association that forced feeding is “never ethically acceptable.”
Will the Nobel Peace Prize winning president who promised the U.S. wouldn’t torture stop torturing? Or will he use his own definition of torture, as his predecessor George W. Bush did? Or will he and his apologists just ignore it, like every other promise broken and right violated by this president?

President Obama Won?t Just Close Gitmo, But Will He Stop the Torturing? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

I take it you were in the hospital then? I hope you are feeling better now, Quantum. - Jeri

 

[FA_Q2]

You're insulted if you're a right wing lunatic.

You brought up free will...not me. Depriving someone of the free will is torture?

What is your alternative...just let the guys die? How so very humane.... Sorry but you're being a dumbass...and I have the responsibility to the truth to call you one.

I was not insulted, just commenting on the fact that you have not brought anything to the table other than insults. Here, you are seen continuing such a tactic. If you are not aware, this speaks volumes about the validity of your statements and it does not speak well of them.

If one is being ridiculous; as you and most of the Obama haters have been on this and nearly every other topic, you deserve to be ridiculed. Sorry.

So, you are rescinding your last position that you stated here:

This is what happens when you pull for whatever Obama did without having any actual conviction. You end up contradicting yourself.

Well, I didn't develop my point that well; I'll admit. If you want to kill yourself in your cell, you can just run headfirst into a wall and pretty well end your life. There is nothing that we can do to prevent it is what I should have written after that.

You got me on that one.

Now what were you calling me again? I think you actually looked in the mirror for that one…

If you're being moronic, I'll call you a moron. Sorry.

Just to purposely sit there and watch someone wither away is flat out wrong when you can do something to stop it. If you don't understand it, you really need to look at yourself in the mirror and wonder where you went off the rails.

You can do something to stop it – give them food.

Your option, at least now as before you were on the opposite side, is doing something about it involves chaining someone down and forcing a tube in their throats then poring food down it.

You realize that slamming your head against the wall is not likely to kill you. Just knock you out and you would wake up on the bed that has your hands and legs tied to the posts. Essentially, they could not die no matter what they did.

Now, you are calling me an Obama hater. You are laughable. The only one that is being a moron here is you. Can’t keep your position straight, have to support Obama no matter what and then calling everyone else names all while being completely unable to address the topic. This is getting pathetic so I don’t think I will bother to respond until you manage a coherent point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

By that definition, every prisoner in the country who is currently interred somewhere is being tortured if they want to leave and can't?

If they are not getting enough exercise, calories, social interaction, etc...

Seriously? You don't see the difference between locking people up because they are considered dangerous and forcing them to stay alive when they choose not to eat? I actually believe prison is torture, and I see the difference here.

Just commenting on the point that the deprivation of free will is torture.


Congrats, you're both.


Yes.

Okay...so whatever your point is; what it comes down to is whether Obama should just let people die by starving themselves; right?

I am guessing you think he should just turn off the lights and let the guy die.

I disagree.

I think if you were a guard at one of these installations, you'd be all for force feeding; the sight of a person reverting to his or her birth weight in their 20's and 30's is not something you forget easily; if ever. I haven't.

That is their choice, not yours.

The insanity of the right wing loons to automatically assume the opposite posture of Obama has gotten theatrically comical.

I see the problem now, you have no personal morals or ethics, you rely completely on the judgement of others as to what is right and wrong. No wonder you have no problem with the government forcing people to live in circumstances they find abhorrent, the government is smarter than they are.

 

[FA_Q2]

I see the problem now, you have no personal morals or ethics, you rely completely on the judgement of others as to what is right and wrong. No wonder you have no problem with the government forcing people to live in circumstances they find abhorrent, the government is smarter than they are.

The best part is that he is inferring that you are a hack in that you oppose this because it is Obama ordering it. Never mind that you explicitly stated your opposition to all things like this, including Bush’s debacle. Pot trying to call the kettle in all….

 

[candycorn]

Seriously? You don't see the difference between locking people up because they are considered dangerous and forcing them to stay alive when they choose not to eat? I actually believe prison is torture, and I see the difference here.

Just commenting on the point that the deprivation of free will is torture.


Congrats, you're both.


Yes.

That is their choice, not yours.

The insanity of the right wing loons to automatically assume the opposite posture of Obama has gotten theatrically comical.

I see the problem now, you have no personal morals or ethics, you rely completely on the judgement of others as to what is right and wrong. No wonder you have no problem with the government forcing people to live in circumstances they find abhorrent, the government is smarter than they are.

I want to feed people.
You want to let them die.
I'm fine with my ethics. You should re-consider yours.

 

[candycorn]

I was not insulted, just commenting on the fact that you have not brought anything to the table other than insults. Here, you are seen continuing such a tactic. If you are not aware, this speaks volumes about the validity of your statements and it does not speak well of them.

If one is being ridiculous; as you and most of the Obama haters have been on this and nearly every other topic, you deserve to be ridiculed. Sorry.


Well, I didn't develop my point that well; I'll admit. If you want to kill yourself in your cell, you can just run headfirst into a wall and pretty well end your life. There is nothing that we can do to prevent it is what I should have written after that.

You got me on that one.

Now what were you calling me again? I think you actually looked in the mirror for that one…

If you're being moronic, I'll call you a moron. Sorry.

Just to purposely sit there and watch someone wither away is flat out wrong when you can do something to stop it. If you don't understand it, you really need to look at yourself in the mirror and wonder where you went off the rails.

You can do something to stop it – give them food.

Your option, at least now as before you were on the opposite side, is doing something about it involves chaining someone down and forcing a tube in their throats then poring food down it.

You realize that slamming your head against the wall is not likely to kill you. Just knock you out and you would wake up on the bed that has your hands and legs tied to the posts. Essentially, they could not die no matter what they did.

Now, you are calling me an Obama hater. You are laughable. The only one that is being a moron here is you. Can’t keep your position straight, have to support Obama no matter what and then calling everyone else names all while being completely unable to address the topic. This is getting pathetic so I don’t think I will bother to respond until you manage a coherent point.

Oh shut the **** up...I can point to 10 times I've doubted Obama, called him a liar, said he was a disappointment, etc...

I want to feed people.
You want to let them starve.

Ethically, I'm on ground that is quite firm.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just commenting on the point that the deprivation of free will is torture.


Congrats, you're both.


Yes.



The insanity of the right wing loons to automatically assume the opposite posture of Obama has gotten theatrically comical.

I see the problem now, you have no personal morals or ethics, you rely completely on the judgement of others as to what is right and wrong. No wonder you have no problem with the government forcing people to live in circumstances they find abhorrent, the government is smarter than they are.

I want to feed people.
You want to let them die.
I'm fine with my ethics. You should re-consider yours.

If someone wants to eat I will feed them, if they don't it is no longer my business.

 

[candycorn]

I see the problem now, you have no personal morals or ethics, you rely completely on the judgement of others as to what is right and wrong. No wonder you have no problem with the government forcing people to live in circumstances they find abhorrent, the government is smarter than they are.

I want to feed people.
You want to let them die.
I'm fine with my ethics. You should re-consider yours.

If someone wants to eat I will feed them, if they don't it is no longer my business.

Let them die...a popular theme with some.

And you won't let them go either...which is a pox on both our houses I guess.

I'm of the opinion that there should be some sort of judicial proceedings that should take place before we inter people...a sentence with X number of years or death, or life sentence, or something....

Then, possibly, you don't get the helpless case of prisoners who would rather die through the most painful method possible.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I want to feed people.
You want to let them die.
I'm fine with my ethics. You should re-consider yours.

If someone wants to eat I will feed them, if they don't it is no longer my business.

Let them die...a popular theme with some.

And you won't let them go either...which is a pox on both our houses I guess.

I'm of the opinion that there should be some sort of judicial proceedings that should take place before we inter people...a sentence with X number of years or death, or life sentence, or something....

Then, possibly, you don't get the helpless case of prisoners who would rather die through the most painful method possible.

Death with dignity is even more popular, especially among people that believe in personal choice over government control.