Let’s just get back to informed consent & eliminate the DEI & social justice nonsense from current med education. We might want to address the ongoing capture of nearly everyone conducting research also.
Let’s just get back to informed consent & eliminate the DEI & social justice nonsense from current med education. We might want to address the ongoing capture of nearly everyone conducting research also.
The popular acronym DEI, as the Creator of All would seem to have it, is also in fact the same letters in the same order that spell, in the ordinary, lower case, the plural form of the Latin deus, or god; and so, "gods". (St Jerome, in his Vulgate (common) Latin translation of the first Christian Bible, written in Greek, wrote down "Deus" when he translated from "Theos" -- what the earlier Hellenistic Jewish translators, fluent in Koine Greek, wrote down when they translated Elohim from the still Hebrew-speaking, post-Mosaic era Israelites, in whose trusted custody, led by Joshua, Moses placed the great lawgiver's First Five Books, or Pentateuch, the primary Torah. Jerome was working from the Septuagint, the "70-authored" translation into the Common Greek of the complete Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, the full, written expansion and expression of Torah.
(Jonathan Cahn would argue that the same, middle-era Israelites were implicitly on to something -- grounds for the later inspired Trinity -- in connoting a singular, oral meaning, God, from a plural, written number for this, Gods.)
Following the same, Biblical narrative regarding Israel's perennial and paradigmatic struggles with its (as would be any human society's) apostatic drives, we're dealing today, quite arguably and for many learned observers and writers, with what Messianic Rabbi, renowned minister and successful author Jonathan Cahn recognizes, in his book by the related title, The Return of the Gods -- namely, the evil and destructive demons, known well to the Biblical pre-ancients (Mosaic & later Israelites) and later ancients (Christians) as Baal, Ishtar, and Moloch -- with the systematic program of the Hebrew/Jewish Hasatan, and the Christian Satan.
The present linguistic phenomenon involving DEI and its meaning in another, entirely different context is telling, in my merely lay sense of well-known old and current affairs. Call it coincidence, if you must. I call it clarion and theologically informative. It's an Admonition from Above, if you asked me.
Check out Cahn on YouTube. Hear him for yourself. Naomi Wolf pays him a lot of inspired and informed attention in her writings, you might be interested to learn, in case you're unaware.
Well, you can find a lot of homographs in the English language and even more if you expand to different languages. The English word "gift" means "poison" in German. And that has a deeper meaning of nothing.
If a deity created humans, that deity clearly loves diversity, since it created so much of it. And if we want to follow that deity, we should also love diversity.
I have nothing against diversity per se. On the contrary, I'm a huge fan of its merit and invaluableness in American society. Read me, please, rather than your script projected onto me, inter alia.
I'm sure you're ascribing an outsized importance to the institution of diversity when unbalanced and relatively exaggerated in the absence of an overarching, cohesive sociopolitical gestalt, that is unity.
Creation itself is the greatest possible, demonstrated expression of The Deity, our Lord's, inimitable Unity.
Of course, believing in diversity, I have no personal problem with your insistence on using the term deity in lieu of my more reverent selection; however if you'd rather insist, even demand, still further, outright mandate by undemocratic edict that I not capitalize my D when saying "deity," those of us who so worship and speak our free minds will oppose you, and vigorously.
With respect and in peace, we say, Don't tread on us.
Do the people who are often underrepresented in medicine say they are racist too? Or is that just your view point? What do studies say about medical outcomes if practitioners are more diverse?
How do you feel about programs based on sex? Should women earn the same wage than men for the same work?
Can you explain what DEI in other languages meaning God has anything to contribute to the discussion?
In addition: the singular genitive form of deus is also dei.
Ecologically a system is a lot more stable with more diversity. Diversity is very important. A nation of rocket scientists only would be very unstable.
It's gods, not God, just as deus ex machina doesn't actually translate into either Gods or God from the machine. There is a god, and are the gods; then, there is God in Greco-Roman pantheism. But we're not talking about Zeus or Jupiter, which are singular, but obviously super deities, or Deities, respectively.
In any case, Cahn's "gods," dei -- Baal, Ishtar, and Moloch -- I'm actually citing another's find, were certainly and are not meant to be worshipped by Israelites/Jews and early/later Christians, though they actually were by these faiths' apostates through the ages -- and today certainly are by many, too, too many in our American society and others in the world.
Specifically, I took an extended tangent-trip in reply to one of Dr Molly Rutherford's posts. It mentioned the waste of valuable time and other resources in which more and more med schools today are engaging by instituting DEI programs. I took it from there to reach implicitly atheistic, antisemitic/anti-Christian/anti-Caucasian, pro-BLM CRT, Anti-Racism, anarcho-tyranny and one-party, Cloward Piven-driven totalitarianism generally -- ie, anti-American family/anti-Western Civilization neo-Marxism replacing the ancient, historic, multicultural but homogenizing roots of our society at work in New Medicine.
I wholeheartedly demurred. And you got how I feel about my beliefs, and my ethical and moral commitments as they relate to the multiple codes-abiding standards for at least the basic restoration, if not the advancement of just and beneficent health care.
Anyway, your prompting post here, I feel, isn't intellectually honest, only disdainfully dismissive. I get the sense, your dialogs are neither collegially approached nor sincerely engaged, but rather are unfriendly, even hostile.
So, never mind, please, "Tina"; just move on from here and I wish you well.
You're certainly right about deus, dei, etc. Cannot one of two be right, per se? Too tight, I'd call your grasp.
More to your main point, though, permit me to ask first, in turn, why you find the neo-Marxist focus on diversity uber alles, unhinged from a humanly social need (we're not merely bees) for structural, meaning- and purpose-dominated unity, so enchanting and all-important.
Intersect this, Tina: How would you like to believe in the safety of the interstates and intersect with a family from Togo, whose head in the driver's seat, like the other family members, neither speaks nor reads the language of our road signs, but only his native Ngangam?
The more (ununified) diversity, the more stable the society -- and this irrelevant gibberish you pass along as hard, not even a qualified social science?
Please, Tina, get real by getting more honest. Stop lying about the faux- virtues of an unhomogenized, societal diversity. Some less skeptical folk, well-meaning folk could mistake your confident stridency for authoritative, tested and proven knowledge.
Be more transparent please about your underlying, driving, essential ideology, your view of humanity and its place on Earth, in relation to other life forms, if you'd be so kind to share here. Let it rip.
Anyway, truth be told, I was brought to sympathize for you on account of your obviously well-schooled, but sadly dogmatic, even hubristic tenor and tone.
Your endearment to "scientific" systems of explanation and prediction of nature and multifarious enterprises, including those invented and necessitated by us humans, d/b/a We the People is really the cry and complaint, rather, of scientism.
Check out a good, original, thoughtful and honest history of science, like Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and then ask yourself, what are we going to do with the JWST's almost iconoclastic findings, relative to our present, total get of the early universe?
The laws and regulations of physics, and thus physical chemistry, biochemistry, and biology itself are definitely far from being settled in the curious manner your speech seems to betray.
In reply to your near- scathing diatribe against homeopathy's unscientifically tested theories to explain its amazing clinical effects, let me add this anecdote: my COVID symptoms progressively vanished last fall while treating myself with homeopathic remedies. And it wasn't the first time, Tina; nor, in case it matters, will it be the last.
Something physicochemical relating to "water memory" and the doctrine of dilutions, not yet discovered perhaps, seems to be occurring.
Well, I would be scathing against a flat earth worldview too.
If you seem to think those are worth while world views, I can't keep you from having them if you prefer them.
But keep in mind that you are actively using the many successes of science. If you are looking for a more mystical experience of the world, it would be more honest to eschew the modern conveniences based science you don't seem to believe in.
So you think it is a good idea to not have social justice? If you don't like diversity, would you say there should be no women in medicine? Just white men who come from families which can afford to pay for a medical education? If you get rid of diversity, that is what you want?
No. That’s ridiculous. When I went to med school, women were in the majority. That was 20 years ago. These Marxist ideas are evil, and we’d better get rid of them asap, or you won’t have a critical thinking doctor to take care of you. You will have a rule follower who, for example, recommends a shot to you that you do not need and that is more likely to harm you than to help you.
Given your evident, narcissistic profile, and thus not likely lending yourself to real, responsible and sensible, empathy-requiring behavior, let alone the seemingly slim chance of being in an honest, mutually rewarding relationship with a warm, bipedal and upright, interactive vertebrate, it stands to reason you'd be unfamiliar with the reciprocity notion lying at the heart of the word desert, in the sense I presently employed it (though I wasn't even speaking to you; so, a very gratuitous, unwelcome gesture on your part).
Right now, your hollowness even exceeds your stupid arrogance, which is clearly plenty abusive, antisocial, and probably noxious to most whom you encounter.
I'm sure there's a history in your case. Fortunately, however, even for you, there's hope. Try gratitude first, followed by honest reflection and a good measure of contrition. Then, consult your infinitely more (than I am now toward you) understanding, caring, even readily forgiving and embracing Creator.
If you come to see the proverbial light, and thus learn to care enough about yourself in the sense of how you regard and treat others, you just may redeem yourself enough to warrant, yes, your just desert: A renewed and more genuine You; others will be pleased as well, I'm sure.
Well, the phrase you should have used is "JUST desertS". Capitalization to show what you omitted. One can quibble about the s at the end of deserts, but contemporary usage definitely includes it. In language details matter.
I sincerely congratulate you on your powers of projection.
You can't disobey incorrect commands, can you? You're not even free to see how fundamentally flawed and utterly mistaken your present linguistic observation is -- that's how mindless you are.
You're not a real, human entity; therefore, like the others have already told you, I'm also saying to you now, I don't have the time or interest to debate you, a non-debating, bad faith, foiling bot. It'd be idiotic to do so.
Now, granted, I may be entirely wrong in that you live and breathe. Be that as it may, your compass, however, is just too often wrong, misguided, and deranged -- mostly, however, too evasively dishonest and tainted with a lust for foul play -- for me to learn anything wholly worthy from you in my commitment to true dialog.
Maybe, rather, diversity amid a larger, more homogenized society, one the motto E Pluribus Unum best portrays.
The watchword here, friend, is our much needed and forgotten sense, to be sure, our practice of UNITY; for, lacking this, diversity is nothing but destructive fragmentation -- unless that is your real desire and goal for America. Is it?
I agree with unity. And unity is based on fairness. People are not going to feel united with others if they feel treated unfairly or feel ignored. Therefore political organizations which preach against inclusion and diversity promote fragmentation.
Reality's text however, has recorded far more to the contrary than you relate, however heartfelt, pure and noble you believe your aspirations are for us all.
There is, frankly, a circular form of logic in your general argument, which, being overly deductive, intrinsically lacks an empirical truthfulness or soundness.
What you say, then, is necessarily valid, but, in the immediate space-time continuum that is our society's shared existence, simply unverifiable, given an honest accounting of the facts, past and present, and thus pretty questionable.
Diversity is onanistic in the absence of unity. Equity is a fraud, and you know it, or should. And inclusion is an old, worn-out and tiring Marxist complaint delineated from alienation, a core premise and pretense for revolutionaries everywhere and at all times.
No gratitude, no happiness. Get grateful and you'll renew your sacred life. That's the beginning and end of inclusion.
This is all about putting the horse before the cart -- as in learning the principles of EBM prior to the laws of biology, the logical premises of human physiology and pharmacology, or what's part and parcel in allopathic medicine. This horse-pulled cart is on the way to becoming more integrated, real, less metaphysical in promoting for future doctors of medicine and osteopathy a richer, sounder, more meaningful curricular content and application.
It sounds right for patients, if not for the dogmatic theoreticians of the medieval schools, as it were. Let's get out of our heads and do it.
This is just oseudoprofound ramblings. Are you using a Chopra quote generator?
If you call me a revolutionary you demonstrate that you have zero grasp on my opinions. Just a lot of your own preconceived notions. I get it that their are dear to you. But you have not remotely convinced me why they should be dear to me.
Let’s just get back to informed consent & eliminate the DEI & social justice nonsense from current med education. We might want to address the ongoing capture of nearly everyone conducting research also.
Have you seen or heard?
The popular acronym DEI, as the Creator of All would seem to have it, is also in fact the same letters in the same order that spell, in the ordinary, lower case, the plural form of the Latin deus, or god; and so, "gods". (St Jerome, in his Vulgate (common) Latin translation of the first Christian Bible, written in Greek, wrote down "Deus" when he translated from "Theos" -- what the earlier Hellenistic Jewish translators, fluent in Koine Greek, wrote down when they translated Elohim from the still Hebrew-speaking, post-Mosaic era Israelites, in whose trusted custody, led by Joshua, Moses placed the great lawgiver's First Five Books, or Pentateuch, the primary Torah. Jerome was working from the Septuagint, the "70-authored" translation into the Common Greek of the complete Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, the full, written expansion and expression of Torah.
(Jonathan Cahn would argue that the same, middle-era Israelites were implicitly on to something -- grounds for the later inspired Trinity -- in connoting a singular, oral meaning, God, from a plural, written number for this, Gods.)
Following the same, Biblical narrative regarding Israel's perennial and paradigmatic struggles with its (as would be any human society's) apostatic drives, we're dealing today, quite arguably and for many learned observers and writers, with what Messianic Rabbi, renowned minister and successful author Jonathan Cahn recognizes, in his book by the related title, The Return of the Gods -- namely, the evil and destructive demons, known well to the Biblical pre-ancients (Mosaic & later Israelites) and later ancients (Christians) as Baal, Ishtar, and Moloch -- with the systematic program of the Hebrew/Jewish Hasatan, and the Christian Satan.
The present linguistic phenomenon involving DEI and its meaning in another, entirely different context is telling, in my merely lay sense of well-known old and current affairs. Call it coincidence, if you must. I call it clarion and theologically informative. It's an Admonition from Above, if you asked me.
Check out Cahn on YouTube. Hear him for yourself. Naomi Wolf pays him a lot of inspired and informed attention in her writings, you might be interested to learn, in case you're unaware.
Well, you can find a lot of homographs in the English language and even more if you expand to different languages. The English word "gift" means "poison" in German. And that has a deeper meaning of nothing.
If a deity created humans, that deity clearly loves diversity, since it created so much of it. And if we want to follow that deity, we should also love diversity.
I have nothing against diversity per se. On the contrary, I'm a huge fan of its merit and invaluableness in American society. Read me, please, rather than your script projected onto me, inter alia.
I'm sure you're ascribing an outsized importance to the institution of diversity when unbalanced and relatively exaggerated in the absence of an overarching, cohesive sociopolitical gestalt, that is unity.
Creation itself is the greatest possible, demonstrated expression of The Deity, our Lord's, inimitable Unity.
Of course, believing in diversity, I have no personal problem with your insistence on using the term deity in lieu of my more reverent selection; however if you'd rather insist, even demand, still further, outright mandate by undemocratic edict that I not capitalize my D when saying "deity," those of us who so worship and speak our free minds will oppose you, and vigorously.
With respect and in peace, we say, Don't tread on us.
I too value diversity, but the programs infiltrating our institutions are racist. No other way to describe it.
Do the people who are often underrepresented in medicine say they are racist too? Or is that just your view point? What do studies say about medical outcomes if practitioners are more diverse?
How do you feel about programs based on sex? Should women earn the same wage than men for the same work?
Can you explain what DEI in other languages meaning God has anything to contribute to the discussion?
In addition: the singular genitive form of deus is also dei.
Ecologically a system is a lot more stable with more diversity. Diversity is very important. A nation of rocket scientists only would be very unstable.
It's gods, not God, just as deus ex machina doesn't actually translate into either Gods or God from the machine. There is a god, and are the gods; then, there is God in Greco-Roman pantheism. But we're not talking about Zeus or Jupiter, which are singular, but obviously super deities, or Deities, respectively.
In any case, Cahn's "gods," dei -- Baal, Ishtar, and Moloch -- I'm actually citing another's find, were certainly and are not meant to be worshipped by Israelites/Jews and early/later Christians, though they actually were by these faiths' apostates through the ages -- and today certainly are by many, too, too many in our American society and others in the world.
Specifically, I took an extended tangent-trip in reply to one of Dr Molly Rutherford's posts. It mentioned the waste of valuable time and other resources in which more and more med schools today are engaging by instituting DEI programs. I took it from there to reach implicitly atheistic, antisemitic/anti-Christian/anti-Caucasian, pro-BLM CRT, Anti-Racism, anarcho-tyranny and one-party, Cloward Piven-driven totalitarianism generally -- ie, anti-American family/anti-Western Civilization neo-Marxism replacing the ancient, historic, multicultural but homogenizing roots of our society at work in New Medicine.
I wholeheartedly demurred. And you got how I feel about my beliefs, and my ethical and moral commitments as they relate to the multiple codes-abiding standards for at least the basic restoration, if not the advancement of just and beneficent health care.
Anyway, your prompting post here, I feel, isn't intellectually honest, only disdainfully dismissive. I get the sense, your dialogs are neither collegially approached nor sincerely engaged, but rather are unfriendly, even hostile.
So, never mind, please, "Tina"; just move on from here and I wish you well.
You're certainly right about deus, dei, etc. Cannot one of two be right, per se? Too tight, I'd call your grasp.
More to your main point, though, permit me to ask first, in turn, why you find the neo-Marxist focus on diversity uber alles, unhinged from a humanly social need (we're not merely bees) for structural, meaning- and purpose-dominated unity, so enchanting and all-important.
Intersect this, Tina: How would you like to believe in the safety of the interstates and intersect with a family from Togo, whose head in the driver's seat, like the other family members, neither speaks nor reads the language of our road signs, but only his native Ngangam?
The more (ununified) diversity, the more stable the society -- and this irrelevant gibberish you pass along as hard, not even a qualified social science?
Please, Tina, get real by getting more honest. Stop lying about the faux- virtues of an unhomogenized, societal diversity. Some less skeptical folk, well-meaning folk could mistake your confident stridency for authoritative, tested and proven knowledge.
Be more transparent please about your underlying, driving, essential ideology, your view of humanity and its place on Earth, in relation to other life forms, if you'd be so kind to share here. Let it rip.
This is just a distraction to the answers what role your deity plays here.
Clever rhetoric, I guess
Anyway, truth be told, I was brought to sympathize for you on account of your obviously well-schooled, but sadly dogmatic, even hubristic tenor and tone.
Your endearment to "scientific" systems of explanation and prediction of nature and multifarious enterprises, including those invented and necessitated by us humans, d/b/a We the People is really the cry and complaint, rather, of scientism.
Check out a good, original, thoughtful and honest history of science, like Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and then ask yourself, what are we going to do with the JWST's almost iconoclastic findings, relative to our present, total get of the early universe?
The laws and regulations of physics, and thus physical chemistry, biochemistry, and biology itself are definitely far from being settled in the curious manner your speech seems to betray.
In reply to your near- scathing diatribe against homeopathy's unscientifically tested theories to explain its amazing clinical effects, let me add this anecdote: my COVID symptoms progressively vanished last fall while treating myself with homeopathic remedies. And it wasn't the first time, Tina; nor, in case it matters, will it be the last.
Something physicochemical relating to "water memory" and the doctrine of dilutions, not yet discovered perhaps, seems to be occurring.
Well, I would be scathing against a flat earth worldview too.
If you seem to think those are worth while world views, I can't keep you from having them if you prefer them.
But keep in mind that you are actively using the many successes of science. If you are looking for a more mystical experience of the world, it would be more honest to eschew the modern conveniences based science you don't seem to believe in.
So you think it is a good idea to not have social justice? If you don't like diversity, would you say there should be no women in medicine? Just white men who come from families which can afford to pay for a medical education? If you get rid of diversity, that is what you want?
No. That’s ridiculous. When I went to med school, women were in the majority. That was 20 years ago. These Marxist ideas are evil, and we’d better get rid of them asap, or you won’t have a critical thinking doctor to take care of you. You will have a rule follower who, for example, recommends a shot to you that you do not need and that is more likely to harm you than to help you.
So you say it would be ridiculous to have diversity in the medical field, but that diversity is Marxist?
What do you think Marxist means?
Can you be concrete about the shot one does not need? A postnatal vitamin K shot?
I don’t have time to debate you. I’m seeing patients.
A fitting desert, doctor, for a pseudodebater.
I would recommend to sometimes use a dictionary and look up what the word desert means.
Because you are again not making any sense.
Really? Check this out, at desert 2, n: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/desert
QED
Given your evident, narcissistic profile, and thus not likely lending yourself to real, responsible and sensible, empathy-requiring behavior, let alone the seemingly slim chance of being in an honest, mutually rewarding relationship with a warm, bipedal and upright, interactive vertebrate, it stands to reason you'd be unfamiliar with the reciprocity notion lying at the heart of the word desert, in the sense I presently employed it (though I wasn't even speaking to you; so, a very gratuitous, unwelcome gesture on your part).
Right now, your hollowness even exceeds your stupid arrogance, which is clearly plenty abusive, antisocial, and probably noxious to most whom you encounter.
I'm sure there's a history in your case. Fortunately, however, even for you, there's hope. Try gratitude first, followed by honest reflection and a good measure of contrition. Then, consult your infinitely more (than I am now toward you) understanding, caring, even readily forgiving and embracing Creator.
If you come to see the proverbial light, and thus learn to care enough about yourself in the sense of how you regard and treat others, you just may redeem yourself enough to warrant, yes, your just desert: A renewed and more genuine You; others will be pleased as well, I'm sure.
I wish for your health and good luck.
Well, the phrase you should have used is "JUST desertS". Capitalization to show what you omitted. One can quibble about the s at the end of deserts, but contemporary usage definitely includes it. In language details matter.
I sincerely congratulate you on your powers of projection.
Really, bot?
You can't disobey incorrect commands, can you? You're not even free to see how fundamentally flawed and utterly mistaken your present linguistic observation is -- that's how mindless you are.
You're not a real, human entity; therefore, like the others have already told you, I'm also saying to you now, I don't have the time or interest to debate you, a non-debating, bad faith, foiling bot. It'd be idiotic to do so.
Now, granted, I may be entirely wrong in that you live and breathe. Be that as it may, your compass, however, is just too often wrong, misguided, and deranged -- mostly, however, too evasively dishonest and tainted with a lust for foul play -- for me to learn anything wholly worthy from you in my commitment to true dialog.
Well, I give you that you are somewhat entertaining and I am having a very slow day.
For somebody who does not want to learn from me, you are wasting a lot of overly emotional responses on me. Should I feel flattered?
I find it very curious that you are the second person unwilling to debate me on this forum. I can only read a lack of ability jntobthis unwillingness.
Sorry that should read "ridiculous NOT to have diversity"
Maybe, rather, diversity amid a larger, more homogenized society, one the motto E Pluribus Unum best portrays.
The watchword here, friend, is our much needed and forgotten sense, to be sure, our practice of UNITY; for, lacking this, diversity is nothing but destructive fragmentation -- unless that is your real desire and goal for America. Is it?
I agree with unity. And unity is based on fairness. People are not going to feel united with others if they feel treated unfairly or feel ignored. Therefore political organizations which preach against inclusion and diversity promote fragmentation.
Perfect theory for a revolutionary like yourself.
Reality's text however, has recorded far more to the contrary than you relate, however heartfelt, pure and noble you believe your aspirations are for us all.
There is, frankly, a circular form of logic in your general argument, which, being overly deductive, intrinsically lacks an empirical truthfulness or soundness.
What you say, then, is necessarily valid, but, in the immediate space-time continuum that is our society's shared existence, simply unverifiable, given an honest accounting of the facts, past and present, and thus pretty questionable.
Diversity is onanistic in the absence of unity. Equity is a fraud, and you know it, or should. And inclusion is an old, worn-out and tiring Marxist complaint delineated from alienation, a core premise and pretense for revolutionaries everywhere and at all times.
No gratitude, no happiness. Get grateful and you'll renew your sacred life. That's the beginning and end of inclusion.
This is all about putting the horse before the cart -- as in learning the principles of EBM prior to the laws of biology, the logical premises of human physiology and pharmacology, or what's part and parcel in allopathic medicine. This horse-pulled cart is on the way to becoming more integrated, real, less metaphysical in promoting for future doctors of medicine and osteopathy a richer, sounder, more meaningful curricular content and application.
It sounds right for patients, if not for the dogmatic theoreticians of the medieval schools, as it were. Let's get out of our heads and do it.
This is just oseudoprofound ramblings. Are you using a Chopra quote generator?
If you call me a revolutionary you demonstrate that you have zero grasp on my opinions. Just a lot of your own preconceived notions. I get it that their are dear to you. But you have not remotely convinced me why they should be dear to me.