>>> sw: "You know if she said this about blacks or trans she'd be gone by now"
>>T-1: "Nah. The entire Free Press community..."
Since "The entire Free Press community", let alone Right-wing philosophy in general, is NOT the dominant philosophy in State licensing, government medical care, or the medical profession in general, your "Nah" here grotesquely false and duplicitous. THOSE institutions' response to a nurse declaring she would refuse to treat "blacks or trans" is precisely what sw identifies. What's more, you KNOW this to be true. That is why you deliberately and dishonestly committed the Fallacy of Dropping Context, intentionally switching the individuals sw WAS referencing for others whom he was NOT referencing.
Put simply, you tried to EVADE and DISTRACT AWAY from the blatant HYPOCRISY of those whom sw was referencing by playing the fallacious "whataboutism" game - ie by pointing to some OTHER group and declaring they are supposed hypocrites on the subject.
Talk about blatantly *confessing* the fact you REJECT reason as your epistemological standard and honesty as your moral standard.
>>"The entire Free Press community would defend it as "Free Speech" and would call ANY criticism "cancel culture.""
Given the Right's attitudes towards hospitals and doctors who perform "gender affirming" treatments and surgeries on consenting adults, I would not be surprised to see them defend a nurse who made such a claim about providing that SPECIFIC type of medical care (just as they defend nurses, doctors, and hospitals who refuse to provide abortions, for instance). I have not, however, seen any evidence that the Right would defend such a nurse if she declared she would refuse to treat a trans who, say, had been in a car accident or who had been shot by a criminal etc, simply *because* they are trans. NOR have I seen any evidence that the Right would defend such a nurse if she declared she would refuse to treat a black person simply *because* they are black.
Given that you make the claim "The entire Free Press community" would defend a nurse who refuses to treat - in ANY way for ALL afflictions - a trans person or a black person - for ALL afflictions - I am certain you have the evidence needed to back up such a sweeping claim. So, please provide a link to The Free Press itself making an argument that anyone in the medical profession has the right to refuse ANY and ALL treatment of a trans person *because* they are trans. And please provide a link to The Free Press itself making an argument that anyone in the medical profession has the right to refuse ANY and ALL treatment of a black person *because* they are black.
Since you declare "the ENTIRE Free Press community" [emphasis added] would make this argument, it should be EASY for you to provide such evidence.
So you can NOT point to even a SINGLE post where The Free Press has defended, as "Free Speech", ANYONE in the medical profession who has declared they refuse to treat ALL trans or ALL blacks for ANY reason (car crash, being shot by a criminal, etc). And you can NOT point to even a SINGLE post where The Free Press has declared criticisms of such a (non-existent) medical professional is "cancel culture" and must be stopped.
In other words, your accusation was a willful and blatant LlE on your part - one committed to EVADE the fact of your TRIBE’S moral hypocrisy.
Got it.
Thanks for *proving* my point that reason is NOT your epistemological standard and honesty is NOT your moral standard.
>>"You wrote a lot. A hit dog hollers, I guess."
LOL!
You apparently didn't read anything I've written on "this discussion board". (So much for your claim to have read this discussion board - aka so much for it supposedly being "evidence" for your claim. That was just ANOTHER of your LlES).
*I* have EXPLICITLY been making the case - against everyone here - that this nurse has the RIGHT to make such claims. Moreover, *I* have been making the case - ALSO against everyone here - that she and others have the RIGHT of free association (ie that the State has NO right to put a gun to ALL their *bigoted* heads and FORCIBLY FORBID them from associating with one another in ANY consensual capacity, including health care).
In fact, I have EXPLICITLY argued that she (or a doctor, or a hospital) has the "*absolute* RIGHT" to hang up a sign saying 'NO Jews Allowed' or 'NO Trans Allowed' or 'NO Blacks' allowed.' Those were my EXPLICIT examples. And essentially EVERYONE on this "discussion board" (with perhaps the exception of Lizzie) vehemently REJECTED that argument. That FACT *proves* the LlE of your claim that "this discussion board" is evidence “the ENTIRE Free Press community” would support, in ANY way, the idea of a nurse in a hospital refusing to treat any and all trans or blacks simply *because* they are trans or black.
Contrary to your LlE here, they REJECT that *right*. Instead, they RIGHTEOUSLY demand to VIOLATE that right.
Moreover, I ALSO - *very* explicitly - argued that everyone has the “*absolute* RIGHT”here to "shun into oblivion" anyone and everyone who supported a 'NO Jews' 'NO Trans' 'NO Blacks' policies. And absolutely NO one disagreed with that point. That FACT also *proves* the LlE of your claim that "this discussion board" is evidence that "the ENTIRE Free Press community" would REJECT such shunning (ie would REJECT "cancel culture") when it comes to people practicing such policies against trans or blacks.
Contrary to your LlE here, they EMBRACE that *right*. They RIGHTEOUSLY demand to PRACTICE that right.
Put simply, YOU are the "dog" that was 'hollering' here. I’ve simply whacked a newspaper (aka the facts) across your nose and told you to STOP your barking (aka to stop your LYlNG).
The truth of the matter is that - contrary to all your 'hollering' - you and most everyone else here are the SAME. You are but competing SECTS of the same EVIL philosophy. ALL of you *reject* the individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort. ALL of you instead treat the individual as your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires. And ALL of you simply SQUABBLE amongst yourselves over the 'best' way to dispose of your human CHATTEL so as to satisfy your desire to VIOLATE “bigots”.
You ALL share the evil FEELING that bigots (real or imagined) somehow *magically* LOSE their right to their OWN life and their OWN effort and *magically* become your PROPERTY, simply *because* they are supposedly bigots.
THAT is the obscene evil principle you ALL preach and practice. Of course, like ALL rival gangs, you violently disagree with one another over WHO should be your gang’s enemy (ie over WHO qualifies as a bigot).
In other words, you‘re just a Crip to their Bloods - mindless thugs (or, to continue your analogy, feral snarling dogs) one and all.
Thanks for helping *prove* that point with your 'hollering' here. :)
I'd like a link please. Given your LlES, your EVASIONS, and your HALF-Truths here so far, I don't trust a single thing you say to be an HONEST record of ALL the pertinent facts and context.
Of course, even if true, that would NOT be evidence that Bari or Rogan, let alone "the ENTIRE Free Press community" would refuse to shun a doctor who refuses to treat all blacks simply because they are black. Moreover, it ignores the ACTUAL evidence YOU have (quite UNINTENTIONALLY) provided that people here have NOT rejected shunning that doctor on the basis that would be "shutting down free speech" and engaging in "cancel culture". NOT one of them has rejected that EXPLICIT and DIRECT argument - a point YOU have *repeatedly* pointed out yourself!
You *really* don't do the 'logical argument' thing well, do you?
Write the director of the hospital. I did. As a retired RN, BSN I was deeply offended by her abhorrent statements and I agree her license should be revoked.
No. People have the *right* to freely choose to associate or refuse to associate with her based on their judgement of her words and actions. Forcibly prohibiting everyone and anyone from employing her because you don't LIKE the ideas she expressed is not only a violation of *her* rights, but of *everyone's* rights (ie of those who would hire her based on her nursing abilities, not her ideological convictions).
>>"Write the director of the hospital."
Now THIS is the rights-respecting (rather than rights-violating) approach. As she is rightfully free to make her "statements", you are rightfully free to make your own "statements" expressing your 'offense' at her "abhorrent" statement. You are also rightfully free to withhold any and all association with that hospital so long as she is employed there - as well as inform the hospital you will recommend to anyone and everyone who will listen that they too should refuse to associate with the hospital so long as it chooses to associate with this nurse.
In THIS way, no one violates anyone's rights. Instead you are all EXERCISING your rights.
Your comments are ridiculous. My son was treated at OHSU for multiple days. This vile, horrifically mentally ill woman has a right to free speech in America. She has no right to be employed in healthcare. To think this piece of evil shit had access to my son, his IV, his medications, his food after a football injury is incomprehensible. Her views are aligned with the genocidal, antisemitic Muslim nurses in Australia who were on video saying they’d kill Israelis in the hospital and assured us they already had. There are morals, standards and codes of ethics in healthcare. This woman is also extremely ignorant and low IQ, as she repeatedly refers to a “genocide” taking place in Gaza. No clear thinking, correctly educated, moral person repeats this lie and blood libel. If OHSU refuses to fire this nurse, if the Oregon Board Of Nursing refuses to terminate her license, no one, not just Jews, is safe seeking care at OHSU or at any Oregon healthcare facility.
>>"She has no right to be employed in healthcare."
She has EVERY right to associate with ANYONE and EVERYONE who voluntarily chooses to associate with her. And YOU have NO right to STOP any of them. Contrary to your FEELINGS here, they are NOT your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires. Their life and their effort are their OWN not YOURS.
>>"this piece of evil shit"
You are certainly free NOT to associate with individuals you do not like. You are certainly free NOT to associate with the individuals who hire them. And you are certainly free to try to convince anyone who would hire them or be treated by them to change their minds and NOT associate with her.
And you are free to do all these things because your life and your effort are your OWN. You are NOT the PROPERTY of ANYONE else - just as she is NOT your PROPERTY.
Of course, what you are NOT free to do is put a gun to her head and and the head of EVERYONE else (nor have the State do it for you) and FORCIBLY FORBID all those individuals from VOLUNTARILY interacting with one another (again because THEY are not YOUR PROPERTY). YOU putting a gun to their heads and FORCIBLY FORBIDDING their CONSENSUAL human interactions is *you* VIOLATING *their* rights - ie that makes YOU a "piece of evil shit" WORSE than this nurse (because, as despicable as she is, SHE is violating NO one's rights).
>>"Her views are aligned with the genocidal, antisemitic Muslim nurses in Australia who were on video saying they'd kill Israelis in the hospital and assured us they already had."
This nurse made no such claims or threats about killing any of her patients or wishing to kill any of her patients. She simply stated she wished to EXERCISE her rights of FREE ASSOCIATION and FREE TRADE. That you try to grotesquely equivocate here and declare the EXERCISE of rights is the SAME as the VIOLATION of rights (murder in this case) is *another* EVIL act on your part. It is NO different than you claiming consensual SEX is the same as RAPE.
>>"There are morals and standards and codes of ethics in healthcare."
Every doctor, every nurse, every hospital, and every patient, etc has the right to ask others to associate with them under conditions they voluntarily and mutually agree. What NO one has the right to do is FORCIBLY FORBID them from signing agreements or making standards you don't LIKE - or FORCIBLY DEMAND they sign agreements or set standards you DEMAND.
IF a hospital or a doctor wishes to hire a nurse who is antisemitic, that is properly their RIGHT. Hell, if a hospital or doctor wishes to declare 'No Jews Allowed' (or blacks, or trans, etc), again that is properly their RIGHT. Just as it is properly your right and everyone else's right to SHUN them into OBLIVION.
But what NO one has the right to do is put a GUN to their heads and declare they MUST treat Jews. What NO one has the right to do is put a GUN to their heads and declare IF they do NOT treat Jews, then you will FORCIBLY FORBID them from treating ANYONE, regardless of the voluntary consent of others who WANT to be treated by them.
Put simply, you are committing here the SAME EVIL that was committed against that bakery. You are demanding - at the point of a government gun - that this nurse be FORCED to "Bake that Cake" or forever be FORBIDDEN from baking ever again.
As that was a VILE VIOLATION of the bakers' rights, so to is it a VILE VIOLATION of this nurse's rights.
>>"no one, not just Jews are safe"
If YOU do not feel "safe" interacting with her or anyone else, then you are FREE to WALK AWAY from her (as you are free to try to convince anyone and everyone else to do the same). What you are NOT free to do is substitute, at the point of a gun, YOUR judgement about "safety" (or ANYTHING else) for EVERYONE ELSE'S judgement about *their* OWN safety (that is the EVIL philosophy which created the WHOLESALE violation of rights that was the government's response to Covid). In other words, if others *do* feel "safe" interacting with her, neither you nor anyone else has the *right* to stop them from their consensual interactions.
PERIOD.
Put simply, like the Gazans you (properly) revile, you are treating others as nothing but your meat puppets.
You have to STOP acting like the Gazans. You have to STOP being a Crip to their Bloods.
This is the most unhinged, uneducated, misinformed and frankly, bizarre response to my comment. Are you an American? Do you know anything about healthcare? What nurses and providers do all day? Codes of conduct & laws related to licensure? My husband is a medical provider and has decision making power in the hiring & firing of all employees at medical clinic. This psychotic lunatic, antisemitic piece of shit would be fired immediately for breaking clinic codes of conduct, nursing codes of conduct and for her selfish decision to display her racism & bigotry all over her social media accounts, she put medical facility at risk for numerous investigations, medical record inquires, etc.
OHSU’s reputation would have been severely damaged if she wasn’t fired immediately, it’s still damaged, as moral people wonder how long they knew about this employee’s hate toward Jewish patients and colleagues, yet continued to give her access to patients. It also makes intelligent people question if OHSU is a safe & high quality facility overall.
I’m not sure why you keep regurgitating the fact she has a right to associate and interact with anyone she wants. What’s your point? She absolutely can associate with Nazis in her personal life, where did I say she couldn’t? But she has no right to work in healthcare. Her job as a nurse requires her to give the best care and utilize best practices when treating any patient at OHSU regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economics, etc. She specifically and publicly said to the world she would not treat Jewish patients and hopes they all die “like their ancestors.” You’re insane and delusional if you think she has a right to spew her hate without consequence to her job serving the public as a licensed nurse. Unless you agree with her, in which case, your response makes more sense.
>>"This is the most unhinged, uneducated, misinformed and frankly, bizarre response to my comment. ... Do you know anything about healthcare? ... Codes of conduct & laws related to licensure?"
Since you've misconstrued my argument the same way some others here have - including Tori (though she didn't have your more emotionalist, concrete-bound, knee-jerk reaction *and* she didn't fill her Straw Man attack with your gratuitous insults) - I therefore direct you to the reply I made to Tori, the one she "liked" once she'd understood my *actual* argument rather than the argument she (like you here) *mistook* to be mine:
>>"You're insane and delusional.... Unless you agree with her, in which case, your response makes more sense."
This, of course, is the same emotional nonsense that some in America spewed at the ACLU back in 1977, when that famed Civil Rights organization defended the rights of neo-Nazis in Skokie, Il, USA. It is sad that - nearly 50 years later - some people *still* have yet to learn the lesson taught back then: that no matter HOW much one HATES a person, that HATE does NOTHING to a person's (and everyone else's) rights. The individual's rights remain - and must be defended - regardless of *any* person's FEELINGS.
Nurses do not have the right to refuse to care for a patient. We DO have the right to request a change of assignment for sincerely held moral or ethical reasons. I have never seen a coworker do that in 37 years of practice. If she harbors such hate in her heart, nursing is not the job for her. She is a stain on our profession and I hope she loses her license as she lacks the compassion and judgment to do the job as is required.
Thank you for speaking out as a nurse. Your response, I believe, is representative of the majority of nurses and physicians in America. At least I hope it is. However, you’re correct, she’s a stain on the profession and I believe on OHSU as well. Unfortunately, there are many like her. A public IG account, Physicians Against Antisemitism, reveals the horrific moral depravity of antisemitic healthcare workers in the United States on a daily basis.
I also want to thank you for your 35 yrs of service as a nurse. Your response offers insight into how you approach your incredibly important and extremely challenging job. I have no doubt that the thousands of patients you’ve served over the years received wonderful care.
Nurses are heroes. They are the glue that allows things to run smoothly and they have the most direct patient care. It’s important to speak up loudly and clearly against healthcare workers of any kind displaying and/or spewing their hate of a minority group, or ANY group of people publicly or even privately in the workplace. It’s also important for facility directors and professional organizations to speak out and stand strongly against antisemitism specifically. I haven’t seen this, I’ve seen the opposite, which further erodes trust and makes one wonder if the Hippocratic oath is still a beacon of moral clarity and challenges the assumption that healthcare workers, including mental health providers and those in allied disciplines are the moral, intelligent, caring healers many assume them to be.
>>"Nurses do not have the right to refuse to care for a patient."
So your claim is that nurses do NOT have the right of free association. On what basis do you make that claim?
Nurses are NOT the PROPERTY of others. Others have NO claim to the life and effort of nurses - any more slave owners had a claim to the life and effort of blacks.
I suspect you are conflating contractual agreements with rights (especially given your reference to 'changes of assignment'). Contracts and rights are NOT the same thing.
>>"I hope she loses her license"
Since she is NOT violating anyone's rights (because she is NOT the PROPERTY of others and thus NO one has a 'right' to her services), but she is instead EXERCISING her right to her OWN life and her OWN effort, NO one - certainly NOT the State - has the right to put a gun to her head and FORCIBLY forbid her from interacting with anyone else who VOLUNTARILY wishes to interact with her. NOR does anyone - certainly NOT the State - have the right to put a gun to anyone else's head and FORCIBLY forbid them from VOLUNTARILY interacting with her. NONE of those individuals are your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires. And they are certainly NOT the State's PROPERTY, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires.
Treating other human beings as your PROPERTY is the OPPOSITE of "compassion" and rational "judgement". It is the very *definition* of EVIL.
Your lust to put a gun to other people's heads because you don't LIKE their ideas is NO different that the lust of the Gazans to put guns to the heads of Israelis because they don't LIKE the Israelis' ideas.
Talk about *proving* my point that some here are nothing but Crips to the Gazans' Bloods!
Some professions hold you to a higher standard of moral conduct. Accepting that role is acceptance of that responsibility. She is not forced to be a nurse. Caring for other human beings at their most vulnerable moments of their lives is a privilege, not a right. That's why you study and take an exam to receive a license,which you maintain by keeping your knowledge base current. The public trusts you to do the right thing. Many professions have a moral/ ethical code that holds your behavior to a higher standard. You are free to choose a profession of that nature or not.
I base my knowledge of nursing on 37 years in the profession. What do you base yours on?
>>"Some professions hold you to a higher standard of moral conduct."
The State treating the individual as its PROPERTY, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires, all at the point of its GUN, is the LOWEST "standard of moral conduct" possible - ie it is the very DEFINITION of EVIL.
Yet you hold that grotesque EVIL up as the 'height' of morality.
That is called a complete moral INVERSION!
>>"Accepting that role is acceptance of that responsibility"
That is false.
If YOU wish to accept an idea, you are quite free to do so. And you (and doctors, hospitals, patients, et al) are free to associate ONLY with those who preach and practice that same idea - ie you are ALL free to choose to act in accord with your "moral/ ethical code". Moreover, you are ALL free NOT to associate with anyone who does NOT accept your ideas.
And you are FREE to do ALL these things because you are the SOLE, monopolistic owner of your OWN life and your OWN effort. As such, you - and you ALONE - dispose of YOUR life and effort as YOU, not anyone else, sees fit.
Of course, what you are NOT free to do is put a government gun to the heads of ANYONE else and FORCIBLY FORBID them from VOLUNTARILY interacting with one another if they do NOT accept your idea. And that is because, like you, they are the SOLE, monopolistic owners of THEIR lives and THEIR effort. As such, they - and they ALONE - dispose of THEIR lives and effort as THEY, not YOU, see fit.
Put simply, if a doctor or a hospital (or anyone else) so wishes, they have the *absolute* RIGHT to declare 'No Jews Allowed'. Of course, everyone else has the *absolute* RIGHT to SHUN them into oblivion.
Your (proper) disgust and horror at the idea of 'No Jews Allowed' (be it from someone baking a cake or treating a wound) doesn't CHANGE these FACTS.
To put it succinctly: your *feelings* do NOT make *anyone* your CHATTEL.
>>"I base my knowledge...on 37 years in the profession. What do you base yours on?"
On the FACT that the individual is NOT your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires.
It is a shame that, in *all* those 37 years, you NEVER learned that *basic* moral FACT.
They DO NOT have that right in the United States. The demonic, Jew hating nurse was fired from OHSU. Next, her license will be revoked. As it should be.
No offense, Dude, but what you’re saying is idiotic. Professions have standards — that’s what makes them professions. “I have the right to hire that unethical lawyer.” No you don’t, because his ethics fails deny him access to law as a profession. It’s that simple. If you can’t live up to the standard of *premum non nocere*, you don’t have a right to work in healthcare. It’s not a right, it’s a privilege.
No. Individuals have standards. And every individual is rightfully free to associate with those who agree with his ideas - just as every individual is rightfully free to refuse to associate with those who disagree with his ideas.
>>"I have the right to hire that unethical lawyer"
Invalid comparison. All professions related to law (from the military, to the police, to the courts, etc) pertain to the use of coercive force - ie non-consensual interaction. Any and all other professions - including medicine - pertain to VOLUNTARY human interaction, aka consensual interaction.
Of course, the ONE thing that is true of ALL professions - including law - is that NO one in ANY of them may VIOLATE the rights of ANY individual for ANY reason. NO one - including the law - may treat the individual as their CHATTEL.
>>"you don't have a right to work in healthcare"
You have EVERY right to interact in ANY way with ANY other individual who VOLUNTARILY consents to that interaction. This is true whether one is talking about 'baking that cake' or 'treating that wound'. And that is because your life and your effort (and the lives and effort of ALL those other people) are your OWN. They are YOUR monopolistic PROPERTY.
You are NO one's CHATTEL.
What you do NOT properly have (and the State certainly does NOT have) is the right to put a gun to someone else's head and FORCIBLY FORBID them from freely associating with anyone and everyone who voluntarily agrees with their ideas (be they doctors, patients, tinkers, tailors, or candlestick makers). NONE of those people are your PROPERTY. You have NO right to dispose of them as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires.
In other words, contrary to your principle here, bigots do NOT lose their right to their OWN lives and their OWN effort - they do NOT become your PROPERTY - simply *because* they are bigots.
Put simply, your claim here that other human beings ARE your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires, is not only "idiotic", but is the very *definition* of EVIL.
You’re a wackjob. If you’re a lawyer in Texas and you violate the (rather voluminous) TX lawyer’s code of conduct, you are from then on (or at least until reinstatement), denied the right to practice law in Texas. End of story.
“your claim here that other human beings ARE your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires, is not only "idiotic", but is the very *definition* of EVIL.” I don’t want to be offensive, but that is literally insane. And not what I’m saying at all.
She consents to treating anyone who needs care in the facility that employs her. You’re saying she has a right to choose which people deserve to be cared for. Can she refuse to treat black people? Criminals - rapists, murderers, etc.? People who have strokes, heart attacks, because they smoked and are obese and it’s their own fault? Alcoholics with liver disease? If that’s the case, she shouldn’t be working in a hospital. I’m sure she could find a job where there is zero chance she’d have to care for Jews. Perhaps Gaza?
>>"She consents to treating anyone who needs care in the facility that employs her."
That is not true, which is why everyone - including you - is upset here. She has explicitly stated she does NOT consent to treating Jews.
>>"she shouldn't be working in a hospital"
If a hospital wishes to hire *only* employees who will treat everyone and anyone, that is their right. As such, they have the right to refuse to hire - or to fire - anyone who does not consent to such a condition of employment.
Of course, the converse is true as well. If a hospital wishes to hire employees who will only treat certain conditions or certain people and not others, that is ALSO their right. And, in turn, anyone (doctors, nurses, medical personnel, patients, etc) who doesn't like that fact is free NOT to associate with that hospital in any way, shape, or form.
Put simply, a hospital properly has the *absolute* right to say 'No Jews (or Blacks or Trans or Christians or Muslims etc etc ad nauseam) Allowed' - just as WE properly have the *absolute* right to shun them into oblivion.
What we do NOT properly have (and the State certainly does NOT have) is the right to put a gun to their heads and FORCIBLY FORBID them from freely associating with anyone and everyone who voluntarily agrees with their ideas (be they doctors, patients, etc). NONE of those people are OUR PROPERTY. We have NO right to dispose of them as WE see fit, to satisfy OUR desires.
Put simply, contrary to your principle here, bigots do NOT lose their right to their OWN lives and their OWN effort simply *because* they are bigots.
Perhaps they were unaware that she had restrictions on whom she would treat. It may well be that this became an issue subsequent to her employment. In that case they have every right to dismiss her, unless it is hospital policy to refuse to treat Jews. However, if Oregon State University Hospital is a community hospital (as opposed to a private one) it is required to treat everyone who comes there for treatment.
Rights-defending States do not "tolerate" - ie they STOP - the VIOLATION of the individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort. Whether one LIKES or HATES an individual and/or his ideas doesn't change this fact.
The SAME is true when it comes to the EXERCISE of the individual's rights. Whether one FEELS that the reason a person disposes of his OWN life and his OWN effort is based on "hate" or "love" or ANY other emotion does NOT somehow *magically* transform that individual into one's PROPERTY, to be disposed of as one sees fit, to satisfy one's desires. The individual life and effort REMAIN his OWN regardless of one's FEELINGS about that individual's motivations.
Put simply, one's EMOTIONS do not make the individual one's CHATTEL to do with as one WISHES. THAT is the EVIL 'thinking' and behavior of those you rail against in your other posts here. You should NOT be preaching, let alone practicing, THEIR grotesque philosophy. That just makes you a Crip to their Bloods.
“Associate” is a funny word choice for providing medical care and it’s the hospitals right to evaluate her ability to do her job and fire her if she cannot or will maliciously refuse care. We all have the *right* the live and receive care in a hospital.
>>""Associate" is a funny word choice for providing medical care"
It is a very COMMON word when one speaks of rights (as in the right of "Free Association" - which encompasses ALL voluntary human interaction, including interactions involving "medical care").
>>"it's the hospital's right to evaluate her"
Despite me EXPLICITLY making exactly such points, you seem to *feel* - for some unidentified reason - that I disagree with this idea.
On the basis of the words I have *actually* written here, please identify how exactly you came to this bizarre, counter-factual conclusion.
>>"We all have the *right* the live [sic]"
This statement doesn't make grammatical sense. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect you mean "We all have the *right* TO live". If so, I must point out the fact that NO one has the "right" to live *by* treating OTHER human beings as their PROPERTY. In other words, the Southern Slave Owner had NO right to live by forcing blacks pick cotton - just as you have NO right to live by forcing doctors to treat your wounds.
IF an individual VOLUNTARILY agrees to pick cotton for you, then you have the contractual PERMISSION to live by that means - just as IF an individual VOLUNTARILY agrees to treat your wound for you, then you have the contractual PERMISSION to live by that means. But if NO one VOLUNTARILY agrees to do either of those things FOR you, then - to put it in crude terms - you are sh*t out of luck.
Put simply, the fact that you WISH to live does NOT *magically* place a claim on ANYONE else's life and effort. NO one is your CHATTEL - not for ANY reason.
>>"We all have the *right* [to]...receive care in a hospital"
Contrary to your EVIL premise, there is NO such thing as the "right" to the life and effort of other human beings. Again, NO one is your CHATTEL.
And you land on “Evil”. Which is telling of your unbalanced morals.
Look, CAPSLOCK isn’t a good use of your time…
I would encourage you to absorb the thoughts of those around you. Assuming you don’t live in a lonely bowl of word salad? Although I think you might.
Forcing this narrative down the (very) few sub-stackers’ feeds is pretty darn boring considering everyone else’s HUMAN instinct and that of a medical board says the nurse’s *right* (as you so obsessively write) is not a nuanced issue, it’s a potential for a medical malpractice issue.
But your nuance, and sad excuse for mock trial precedent of “cotton picking” (good lord you are reaching).
Note that Lisa did not address a SINGLE word I wrote. Instead she simply vomited invective.
One thus thanks Lisa for confessing the fact the ONLY 'defense' she has for treating other human beings as her PROPERTY is the kindergartner's 'Nu uh, you a poopyhead!'
As far as I am concerned, the freedom of expression is a very difficult question and it is at the core of our democracy . But at this point I still wonder if it should be limited to opinions while calls for murder or genocide should not be regarded as a normal exercise of this freedom. Indeed , one thing is to say you detest the Jews, which is acceptable. Nobody is obliged to like the Jews. But it is quite another thing to encourage murder as she said she would do , if as a nurse she would have a jewish patient. Likewise , calls to genocide Israel should not be regarded as an acceptable form of this freedom. However, however , who will be in charge of drawing the fine line between the two? Only if God was to be appointed to do the job, I wouldn’t be worried. But if not? Setting ethic limitations to neutralize the floods of hatred can turn into a censorship. So I personally wonder what would be the less « worse ».
>>"it is quite another thing to encourage murder as she said she would do"
I may have missed it, but I don't recall seeing this nurse demand the murder of Jews here (ie she didn't make any statements like the Australian nurses, who said they had - and would again in the future - murder Jews). As such, I am left to presume you are referencing her preference for who should win and who should lose in the war being fought between the Israelis and the Gazans.
If that is indeed the case, then is your argument here: the State should FORCIBLY DICTATE, at the point of a government gun, WHO they should and should NOT be 'allowed' to want to win a war in some other country?
On the basis of what *right* of the individual to his OWN life and his OWN effort do you make such a demand? What *right* is being VIOLATED by statements about who should win or lose - live or die - in such a war?
Put simply, what SPECIFIC right are YOU supposedly violating if you come up to me and say: "I WISH you were dead!" or "I HOPE you die!"?
It would certainly be rude. But I do not see what right of mine you would be violating with that rudeness.
>>"who will be in charge of drawing the fine line"
Your question suggests a belief in the idea that rights are simply the arbitrary desires of human beings. This is not the case. No one's whims draw the line when it comes to free speech or free association. The facts of reality (ie the individual's inviolable, monopolistic right to his OWN life and his OWN effort) draws the line.
>>"Setting ethic limitations to neutralize the floods of hate"
Since the individual does not exist to satisfy your desires or my desires for ANYTHING, we have no right to put a gun to ANY individual's head and FORCE them to achieve that end. They are NOT our PROPERTY, to be disposed of as WE see fit, to satisfy OUR desires. As such, no matter how supposedly "good" (or "less worse") the consequences of us treating our fellow man as nothing but a meat puppet, those supposed "good" ends do NOT justify those means. In other words, contrary to the premise here, there is NEVER - EVER - a justification for VIOLATING another human beings - be that justification "less jews" or "less hate".
To put it in stark, concrete terms: no matter how "good" (or "less worse") a man FEELS the consequences of RAP E might be - no matter WHAT rationalizations he might concoct - there is NEVER, EVER a justification for VIOLATING (RAPlNG) a woman.
This fact is true of ANY and ALL rights. There is NEVER, EVER a justification for treating an individual as one's CHATTEL - no matter WHAT one hopes to achieve by doing so.
All of that said, please note that the issue I was addressing with my posts was NOT the issue of "free speech". As I have repeatedly stated throughout the comment section here, everyone - be it the hospital, other nurses, doctors, patients, the general public, etc - has the *absolute* right to shun this nurse into oblivion BECAUSE of what she said about not treating any Jews and/or BECAUSE she followed through on what she said.
An individual has the RIGHT to shun her *because* of her "speech" and/or her actions.
Put simply, as her refusal to treat (ie to associate with) Jews is her *absolute* right, so TOO it is everyone else's *absolute* right to REFUSE to associate with her IF they so wish. BOTH those acts of voluntarily REFUSING to associate are the EXERCISE of the individual's right of "free association" and "free trade". Moreover, NEITHER of those acts of REFUSING to associate is a violation of ANYONE'S right of "free speech".
Of course, as I have also noted throughout the comment section here, everyone - be it the hospital, other nurses, doctors, patents, the general public, etc - ALSO has the *absolute* right to freely associate and trade with her if they so wish. Such voluntary interactions (ie interactions NOT aimed at VIOLATING anyone's rights) are ALSO the exercise of their monopolistic right to their OWN life and their OWN effort.
It is the VIOLATION of *that* right of free association and trade between consenting adults I was addressing here.
As you have likely noticed, MANY in the comment section here were demanding the State FORCIBLY FORBID the nurse from engaging in ANY voluntary medical interactions with ANYONE else who might wish to partake in a such consensual interaction. In other words, MANY here were demanding that the State treat the nurse and everyone else as ITS PROPERTY, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires.
THAT is what I have tried to explain is WRONG here.
As noted above, because the individual is the SOLE, monopolistic owner of his OWN life and his OWN effort, NO ONE - not you, not me, not the State - NO ONE has the 'right' to FORCIBLY FORBID such consensual interactions (ie no one has the 'right' to treat her and the rest of those people as their PROPERTY).
PERIOD.
No ifs
No ands
No buts.
Treating human beings as one's PROPERTY is the very *definition* of EVIL. It is the philosophy of the Gazans. And their *practice* of that philosophy is WHY they MUST be stopped.
Unfortunately, as I have tried to point out, many (FAR too many) here WANT to practice that EVIL philosophy themselves. In other words, their 'beef' with people the Gazans is NOT that the Gazans treat the individual as their PROPERTY. Their ONLY 'beef' with people like the Gazans is that the FEEL the Gazans aren't disposing of that CHATTEL the 'right' way.
Put simply, the people here feel THEY know how to dispose of human PROPERTY 'better' (or "less worse") than the Gazans. That is WHY they *righteously* declare they may dispose of this nurse (and anyone who voluntary wants to associate with her) as they see fit, to satisfy their desires. It is their *fervent* belief that THEY know the 'right' way to run a Slave Pen.
I have been endeavoring to dissuade them of that EVIL idea.
>>"You cannot refuse to provide medical care to anyone."
That is indeed what some laws declare - just as some laws once declared that you could not refuse to treat a black person as a slave. I do not dispute here the *existence* of such laws. Like the Abolitionists, I dispute the *validity* of such laws. As I have *explicitly* argued, such laws are a VIOLATION of every individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort.
Others here have made your same mistake about my argument - including our host Tori. I thus direct you to her post and my correction of her misapprehension. I hope it clears up any confusion you have about my argument AND about the validity of your assertion here.
No. People have the right to freely choose to associate or refuse to associate with her based on their appraisal of her words and actions. Prohibiting everyone from employing her because you don't like the ideas she expressed is not only a violation of HER rights, but of EVERYONE'S rights.
I am a retired nurse, as an RN in a clinical environment, you do not get to choose whom you treat. I’ve treated criminals and rapists. If you violate your oath, you lose your license.
That is rightfully up to you and the person who employs you - NOT the State or anyone else.
>>"If you violate your oath, you lose your license."
I don't dispute this is the current practice - just as I would not have disputed slavery was the then-current practice in the historic South. What I *am* disputing is the idea that the State has the 'right' to engage in this practice - just as I would have disputed the idea that the State had the 'right' to engage in slavery.
Both practices are wrong for the *same* reason: they are, as I noted, the violation of not only your right to freely practice your profession, but a violation of everyone else's right to hire you if they so wish.
>>"I've treated criminals and rapists."
And, if that is a contractual condition you have voluntarily agreed to for employment with a given hospital or doctor, then you are properly held to that agreement. Just as, if - as part of your contractual agreement with a hospital or doctor - they have voluntarily agreed to let you choose whom you will or will not treat, then they are properly held to that agreement.
Of course, the State has NO right to forcibly dictate (as it currently does) to either you OR the hospital/doctor/employer what contractual agreement you both VOLUNTARILY choose as the conditions for the two of you associating with each other.
Put simply, NO one - not a Jewish person, not a Trans person, not a rapist - NO one has a *right* to dispose of YOUR life and YOUR effort as THEY see fit. IF you refuse to associate with (treat) such individuals, that is your RIGHT. And the State has NO right to PUNISH you for EXERCISING your rights.
That is the point I was making.
Naturally, just as you have the RIGHT to associate or refuse to associate with ANYONE for ANY reason, so too everyone else (hospitals, doctors, patients, the rest of the world) has the right to associate or refuse to associate with *you* for any reason - including your choices of association.
In other words, you properly have every right to hang a sign on your practice which reads: "No Jews Allowed". And everyone else properly has the right to shun you into oblivion. But NO one has the right to put a GUN to your head and FORBID you from working for, or treating, anyone who AGREES with (or doesn't care about) your anti-Jewish bigotry. NO one gets to treat you as THEIR PROPERTY, to be disposed of as THEY see fit, to satisfy THEIR desires. This is *especially* true of the State - which properly exists to STOP all such violators, not *systematize* their violations at the point of its GUN.
Nu uh is your argument lol. Let’s leave it to the lawyers to wrap this violation of the oath nurses take in a bow. Low standards of human behavior is all I’m hearing from your trolls. Really hard sell to protect this person’s job when she is a liability.
Keliren posted the following response here, then quickly blocked me in the hopes I wouldn't see it or be able to respond to it - all so that it would FALSELY appear as if I had no rational response to her(?) post.
Talk about dishonest!
"Did you just compare enabling service discrimination based on race or religion to slavery? Come off it you old goat."
No. I compared:
'Treating a bigot's life and effort as your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires'
to
'Treating a black person's life and effort as your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires'
If you can NOT see the fact that both acts are the *same* VIOLATION of the individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort, that is *your* moral failing, not mine.
One thanks Lisa for confessing the fact she doesn't grasp the SIMPLE concept of "blocked me". That level of *lack* of understanding certainly explains the rest of your posts here about *far* more COMPLEX concepts.
>>"you're unwell"
Lisa has now spent her last few post vomiting nothing but vitriol at me. Since she has reduced herself to nothing but a mindlessly SNARLING ANIMAL, there is nothing rational left to do but BLOCK the ABUSER.
At least she'll now LEARN what the concept of "blocked me" actually means. LOL
Um, no . This is not an issue of ‘free speech’- sorry. This is an issue of professional ethics and safety for patients who are subject to treatment in any facility she works at. She has a right to say that but not a right to treat patients if she makes it clear she won’t treat patients based on their identity.
Like Ari here, you seem to have misapprehended my argument. I did not make a "free speech" argument. I made a "free association" and "free trade" argument.
>>"She has a right to say that"
We agree on this idea.
>>"but not a right to treat patients if she makes it clear she won't treat patients based on their identity"
We vehemently disagree on this idea.
I would direct you to my second post to Ari in this very thread (it begins with the quote: "You do not get to choose whom you treat"). You will find arguments there which rebut this claim you have baldly asserted (ie have in no way supported) here.
Sorry dude, but you’re talking out of your a$$. There’s a difference between whether or not you can have a cake made and health care. You can spout as much pseudo intellectual bs here as your heart desires, but you don’t know what you’re talking about.
>>"Sorry dude, but you're talking out of your a$$"
"Sorry dude", but the kindergartner's 'Nu uh, you a poopyhead!' ain't an argument.
This is a discussion about advanced intellectual concepts. One would *hope* anyone seeking to speak about them would do so at THAT intellectual level, not the level of a pre-rational child.
Try again.
>>"There's a difference between whether or not you can have a cake made and health care."
When it comes to your right to your OWN life and your OWN effort and WHO has the RIGHT to dispose of them - you or others - NO, there is NO difference between them. Moreover, you have said NOTHING, and provided NO evidence, to even support - let alone prove - your Southern Slave Owner idea to the contrary.
The fact is, whether you are interacting with someone to 'Bake that Cake' or 'Treat that Wound', your rights (and theirs) remain the SAME. In other words, contrary to your EVIL premise here, that individual does NOT *magically* become your PROPERTY, for you to dispose of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires in *either* instance.
Put simply, just as it was a VIOLATION of the black person's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort for him to be treated as the PROPERTY of his "Master" - regardless of whether that "Master" commanded him (at the point of a government GUN) to "Bake that Cake" or "Treat my Wound", so too it is a VIOLATION of ALL individuals' rights to their OWN lives and their OWN effort for them to be treated as *your* PROPERTY - regardless of whether you command him (at the point of a government GUN) to "Bake that Cake" or "Treat your Wound".
But thanks for confessing the fact you FEEL... (can't say "THINK", because you can't provide a single FACT of REALITY to support your Southern Slave Owner idea; instead you can only stomp your feet and spit invective) ...you FEEL that YOU have the 'right' to the life and effort of OTHERS. And you lay CLAIM to your 'rightful' human PROPERTY when you FEEL it is 'important' to you (like when it comes to your health).
"Sorry dude" but - despite your WISHES to the contrary - NO human being is your CHATTEL. Not when it comes to making your food. NOT when it comes to tending your wounds. Not for ANY reason - EVER.
PERIOD.
That said, I do appreciate you so *righteously* and nakedly declaring that human beings ARE your PROPERTY. Like rap ists, most people try to HIDE the fact that they preach and practice such a blatant EVIL.
Sorry guy. as a nurse she probably took the Nightingale Oath upon graduation:
I solemnly pledge myself before God and in the presence of this assembly to pass my life in purity and to practice my profession faithfully. I will abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous and will not take or knowingly administer any harmful drug. I will do all in my power to maintain and elevate the standard of my profession and will hold in confidence all personal matters committed to my keeping and all family affairs coming to my knowledge in the practice of my calling. With loyalty will I endeavor to aid the physician in his work and devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my care.
I believe her public statements violate this oath.
>>"I believe her public statements violate this oath."
While there *are* other, legally-binding ethical standards (of which I have identified my objections; see my second response to Ari in this very thread - the one which begins with the quote "You do not get to choose whom you treat"), it is my understanding that the "Nightingale Oath" is a ceremonial, not legal, oath.
>>"you can lose a professional license for something that is unethical..."
You didn't read the post to which I directed you. I say this because I explicitly addressed the "license" issue in it. Specifically, I identified the fact that the "license" issue is a rights-VIOLATING, not a rights-DEFENDING, action by the State - ie the State has no 'right' to do so, any more that the State had the 'right' to treat blacks as slaves. Neither bigots nor blacks are the PROPERTY of the State, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires.
Put simply, I presented rights-based arguments against such rights-violating State action, the same way Abolitionists presented rights-based arguments against the rights-violating State action of slavery. Thus I, again, direct you to those arguments as *rebuttal* to your assertions here.
Prohibiting everyone from employing her because you don't like the ideas she expressed is not only a violation of her rights, but of EVERYONE'S rights.
I might be misunderstanding you and I am sorry if I am but I was focused on the statement you made before that (the one I have pasted just above). The individual to whom you directed that reply has no power to take away her license. But the licensing board for the particular state does. I assume she could (and should) be fired from the staff at this particular hospital as she does cast doubt on the quality of medical care at this hospital. They should not have to worry about extra staffing in case 'the nurse who hates Jews is on duty'
The state professional organization and state licensing board will take it from there to the extent their power allows. And if the State pulls her license he can appeal the decision. But she is deprived employment only in the nursing profession in that state. That's very limited. Is that a loss of rights severe enough to have a court rule in her favor for license reinstatement?
The oath is ceremonial in professional organizations and the assuming of political office. The current era trivializes oaths it seems but is a brief summary of your mission going forward. You have spent 4 years in medical education and you should be well aware of what this oath means and be willing to practice in the profession to it's utmost ethical standards which should override any personal prejudices.
I wish this woman had enough sense to know that with this attitude she should NOT be anywhere in the medical profession. I am of Christian upbringing but I wouldn't want this kind of person treating a family member. Who knows what the next trigger is going to come down the line to create another prejudice in her mind. Her rationalization for her prejudice is irrational. Frankly, I think she's dangerous because she is ethically weak.
Lebanon was the only Christian-majority nation in the Middle East.
It's where I was born.
We prided ourselves on inclusivity. Always welcoming Arab Muslim refugees from all over the Middle East.
We had the best economy despite having no natural oil. The best universities.
They called Beirut the "Paris of the Middle East" and the Mountains of Lebanon was a tourist destination.
My early childhood was idyllic, my father was a prosperous businessman in town and my mother was at home with me, an only child.
Slowly, the Arab Muslims began to become the majority in Lebanon and our rights began to wither away.
Soon, we would find ourselves unable to leave our small Christian town without fear of being stopped and killed by Arabs. In Lebanon your religion is on your government issued ID.
As the war intensified and the radical Islamists made their way south, my home was hit by an errant rocket and my life was forever changed.
We spent the next almost decade in a bomb shelter, scraping together pennies and eating dandelions and roots just to survive.
If it was not for Israel coming in and surrounding our town, I do not know If I would be here today.
Lebanon is now a country 100% controlled and run by Hezbollah. I lost my country of birth.
I thank God every single day I was able to immigrate to America and live out the dream that BILLIONS of people only dream of having.
Now here in America, my adopted country that I have come to love so much, I see the same threats and warning signs happening now that took place in Lebanon when I was a child.
This is my warning to you, America, reverse course now while you still can.
It's not too late to save our freedom and preserve it for the next generation.
You've posted this duplicate post at me twice, while doing NOTHING to link it to a single word I've written. As such, I must ask why you posted them at me, and to what end?
Are you so stupid that you don’t know that employers can set their own polices about social media? Many companies have prohibitions in place that deal with issues like this. Private companies are not government, and can censor your speech all they want. They can also dictate the consequences of engaging speech that can make tarnish their image. Nothing you screech about in response to my post will matter, because none of the bullshit you come back with has any impact on what private companies can do. They fired her. Period. They were correct in doing so, and she has no recourse. So don’t waste your breath responding with your abject stupidity.
>>"Are you so stupid that you don't know that employers can set their own policies..."
Since *I* made that very argument multiple times here, you've simply made MY point for me while "screeching...bullshit" AT me as if I had argued AGAINST "private companies" doing whatever they wish (aka exercising their RIGHT of free association and free trade).
In other words, you rabidly attacked a Straw Man you manufactured out of your own ignorance here.
No. What *I* EXPLICITLY stated should NOT be done is the revocation of her license. Apparently, to use your* words, YOU are "so stupid that you don't know that employers" do NOT license their employees. It is the STATE, not "private companies", who license nurses et al.
Put simply, your RANT about "abject stupidity" was just you PROJECTING here.
Next time don't let your wild emotions about a subject blind you to what people have ACTUALLY written.
this heinous being's behaviour. The problem might be, as it is here in Canada, regulatory bodies are armed with over the top insurance & first class lawyers up the tuchus. So, it's a hard battle to win.
Nonetheless, it is well worth the effort as hate crimes like Ratched has committed can come with LOTS of publicity on social media both old-fashioned (newspapers, radio, cable news) & online.
And a cherry on the sundae...she might even be lynched by State Regulatory Nursing Boards, & US regulatory Nursing bodies, and BASHED AROUND by State politicians, Governors, and may even hit the Big Time in Washington.
There are SO MANY possibilities! Be vigilant & tap into all of them, it is Our right, not a privilege!
This dybek needs be stamped out. She is from the line of haman!
Chodesh Adar (Purim) tov, Shabbat Shalom & Am Israel in Eretz Israel and around the Diaspora!!
Erin - You responded to a thread where I ended up having to block a person ("Alan, aka DudeInMinnetonka") because he was being intentionally irrational and ABUSIVE. As such, while I received an email notification that you responded to me in that thread, I can neither see your post there, nor respond to it there. Apparently, the blocking of that person blocks the entire thread from my view, including anyone else who posts to that thread (I can't even see the rest of *my* posts there). Thus I have been forced to respond to your post here instead:
>>"First off do you mean Allah or some guy named Alan. If you mean Alan who is he & pls provide link to this person's ideology and his views on Islamic Deflection."
It is interesting to note that you too cannot see Alan's posts in that thread. It would appear you blocked him as well (or perhaps he blocked you). Thus, while I could provide you a link to his post, you would not be able to see it. All I can say is, IF you are *actually* interested in reading his words, you can simply log off substack, then come back to this page. At that point you would be able to read his every inane utterance, though you would be unable to respond to any of them.
>>"I ask of you, Rad4Cap, teach us, enlighten us, all of us, here on this thread, what exactly is, Islamic deflection? We are waiting to understand you Salom aleikum Brother!"
Your overladen snark aside, "Islamic deflection" is the epithet Alan spit at me in place of ANY form of rational discourse regarding the ideas I presented here about rights. So that you may understand the full meaning of his words, I include the full text of his logically-unassailable post here:
>>"Tldr Islamic deflectionism".
LOL
In this context, "Islamic deflectionism" is a malicious attack on me (because Alan *explicitly* declares he didn't even read a single word I wrote), claiming I presented fraudulent arguments about rights as a systemically-practiced act of distraction away from the sins of this nurse and the grinding under the goosestepping heel of the State she supposedly deserves - all in the supposed service of Islam. (Of course, I was *actually* identifying what the individual's rights - and therefore justice - dictate she does and does NOT deserve for her sins here).
In other words, vomiting "Islamic deflectionism" was Alan's ad hom way of *dishonestly* EVADING (aka "deflecting" away from) having to address a single word I *actually* wrote. Instead he cowardly attacked a Straw Man of his own, deliberate manufacture - all the while snivelingly PROJECTING *his* sin of deflection onto me.
Or, put more simply, Alan was practicing Islam's principle of taqiyya. Talk about being NOTHING but a Crip to the Islamists' Bloods! Peas in an EVIL pod indeed!
Hope that answers your questions and identifies the fact your smarm was aimed at the wrong target.
If you have any earnest questions about what *I* actually wrote regarding the nurse and rights, please feel free to ask them here. :)
The hospital indeed properly has the right to refuse to associate with (aka employ) her if they see fit.
>>"The Oregon Board of Nursing investigate... might even be lynched by State Regulatory Nursing Boards, & US regulatory Nursing bodies, and BASHED AROUND by State politicians, Governors..."
And all of that would be *wrong*. People properly have the RIGHT to freely choose to associate or refuse to associate with her based on *their* judgement of her words and actions. The State *forcibly* prohibiting everyone and anyone from employing her because IT doesn't LIKE the ideas she expressed is NOT only a violation of HER rights, but is a violation of EVERYONE'S rights (ie a violation of the rights of all those who would hire her based on her nursing abilities, not her ideological convictions).
Put simply, as with religion, the State has NO right to 'allow' or 'forbid' a person from practicing ANY profession on the basis of their philosophy - no matter HOW despicable some may find that philosophy. This is true whether one is anti-semitic or, say, anti-trans.
In other words, the State has NO right to force anyone to "Bake that Cake" (or "Treat that Jew" or "Affirm that Trans"). The individual is NOT the PROPERTY of the State, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires.
That an individual may be a bigot does NOT change this FACT.
One thanks Alan for identifying the fact he doesn't let his SELF-CONFESSED *ignorance* about what someone has said (Alan EXPLICITLY declared he did NOT even read what I wrote) prevent him from coming to conclusions about what he did NOT read.
In other words, one thanks Alan for EXPLICITLY admitting the FACT that - exactly like this antisemitic nurse - reason is NOT his epistemological standard. That FACT certainly explains why - just like the Gazans - Alan blindly *attacks* the individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort.
Talk about birds of a feather!
That says all one need say about Alan's self-professed EMPTY accusation here - not to mention his PROJECTION about 'deflection'.
Secret Hamas docs reveal torture, execution of gay terrorists — while some male Oct. 7 Israeli victims were raped in captivity
By Caitlin Doornbos
Published Feb. 4, 2025, 4:56 p.m. ET
882
Hamas tortured and executed terrorists within its ranks who allegedly had gay sex, shocking documents show — as sources added some male Israeli victims of the Oct. 7 massacre were raped in captivity.
The Iranian proxy terror group had a running list of recruits who were found to have failed Hamas’ “morality checks” by having same-sex relations — and they paid a heavy price, according to documents recovered by the Israel Defense Forces and shared with The Post.
The documents reveal the “crimes” that were allegedly committed by 94 Hamas recruits — lumping “homosexual conversations,” “flirting with girls without a legal relationship” and “sodomy” in with serious allegations of child rape and torture.
Hamas fighters arriving in a pickup truck at Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza City for the handover of hostage Agam Beger to the Red Cross, dated Jan. 30, 2025.
3
Hamas fighters gather for a hostage handover in Gaza City on Jan. 30.
AP
The allegations, dated between 2012 and 2019, involve recruits to Hamas’ intelligence, military and interior ministry and say the new members were eventually deemed “unacceptable” to continue working with the terror group because of their actions.
“He constantly curses God,” according to one allegation, which added, “Information was received that he sexually harassed a young child.“
SPAMMING more articles which have NOTHING to do with a single word I've written is just ANOTHER example of Alan's sin of DEFLECTION which he fraudulently tried to PROJECT onto others.
Apparently Alan has NO rational argument to offer in regard to ANYTHING I've *actually* written here. He can only try - quite unsuccessfully - to steer away from the FACT I previously identified: "the State has NO right to force anyone to "Bake that Cake" (or "Treat that Jew" or "Affirm that Trans"). The individual is NOT the PROPERTY of the State, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires. That an individual may be a bigot does NOT change this FACT."
And no amount of deflection and evasion by Alan will change that FACT either.
First off do you mean Allah or some guy named Alan. If you mean Alan who is he & pls provide link to this person's ideology and his views on Islamic Deflection.
Next up...I have done a thorough internet search for the phrase
'Islamic deflectionism'. I. Come. Up. Empty. (which is an English term for nothing.) Bubkas. Gournish. Efes. You can actually find the meaning of these words (noun s./noun pl.)
So, I ask of you, Rad4Cap, teach us, enlighten us, all of us, here, on this thread,
what exactly is,
Islamic deflection?
We are waiting to understand you.
Salom aleikum Brother!
Here are just a springling of some not helpful links I did find;
This nurse can express her abhorrent views in her own free time but she cannot withhold care from patients based on their ethnicity, religion, or political views. OHSU, the employer, is a public institution in a highly regulated industry, so there must be an investigation before any action is taken. If OHSU finds that Ms. Hart did not break any laws or violate any OHSU policies, they may choose to keep her on staff. I wouldn’t be surprised at such an outcome, but I’d be very concerned — both for the institution and for my own safety as a longtime OHSU patient.
>>"OHSU, the employer, is a public institution in a highly regulated industry"
You misapprehend me. As I've pointed out to others in different threads here, I've not denied this is the current practice - any more than I would have denied slavery was the current practice in the pre-Civil War South. My point, in both cases, is that that the current practice is (as I explicitly stated) "*wrong*". In other words, my point and argument here is the same one the Abolitionists made against the "industry" of slavery: that the State has NO right to treat the individual as *its* PROPERTY, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires. THAT is a VIOLATION of the individual's monopolistic right to his OWN life and his OWN effort.
That the law commits this *grotesque* VIOLATION (be it against blacks or medical professionals) doesn't change that fact.
Put simply, I don't dispute your point that the State does the things you say it does. My entire point is that the State is WRONG to do those things. And you have made NO argument, presented NO facts, here against that point - ie you have left MY argument untouched and undisputed.
You may be correct to say that Ms. Hart cannot be forced to treat certain patients based on their ethnicity or ideology, but that would likely violate OHSU’s policy of non-discrimination.
>>"You may be correct to say that Ms. Hart cannot be forced to treat certain patients...."
That is not my argument, any more than it was the argument of the Abolitionists that blacks could not be forced to pick cotton as slaves. Both this nurse and the black slaves ARE and WERE indeed forced to do such things. This is an indisputable fact.
My argument - like the Abolitionists before me - is that such force by the State is a VIOLATION of the individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort. My argument - like the Abolitionists before me - is that such force is the State treating them as it's PROPERTY, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires.
My argument - like the Abolitionists before me - is that the State treating the individual as its PROPERTY is wrong. One *hopes* you agree with that argument, rather than - like the Southern Slave owner before you - you accept the premise that the individual IS the PROPERTY of the State.
>>"that would likely violate OHSU's policy of non-discrimination
If an employer has a *voluntarily* chosen standard for employment, and if an employee *voluntarily* accepts that condition of employment, then that employer has the contractual right to fire that employee if they "violate" that condition of employment.
I have repeated this point numerous times throughout this entire comment section - including directly to you here ("The hospital indeed properly has the right to refuse to associate with (aka employ) her if they see fit."). Why do you continue to act as if NO such argument has been made here at all, let alone to you specifically?
I will now simply repeat what you continue to IGNORE:
"I don't dispute your point that the State does the things you say it does. My entire point is that the State is WRONG to do those things. And you have made NO argument, presented NO facts, here against that point - ie you have left MY argument untouched and undisputed."
I didn’t address those points because I agreed with you. OHSU’s policies and terms of employment are the dispositive factor. Ms.Hart presumably accepted her job under those terms, so if OHSU determines that she violated her contract they may find it appropriate to dismiss her. She expressed some objectionable opinions but she did not do anything illegal, as far as we know.
I also agree that Ms. Hart’s nursing license is her own property and that it would be wrong to revoke it unless she is found to have violated the professional code of ethics or other terms of her licensure. For example, she might be forced to surrender her license if she were proven to have proactively caused or hastened a patient’s death, as opposed to merely threatening or fantasizing about it on social media, outside of her working hours.
Not only Jewish, but Israeli doctors treat even Palestinian prisoners. Jews have ethics despite how we are portrayed by our haters, who tend to be projecting their own debasement onto us.
Dr. Yuval Bitton helped save Sinwar’s life in 2004 and when Sinwar was released in 2011 he acknowledged this and told Dr. Bitton he would repay the debt one day.
On October 7, Dr. Bitton’s nephew Tamir Adar was wounded while battling terrorists at Kibbutz Nir Oz and abducted to Gaza where he died hours later.
Terrible. I'd be amazed if she actually found an attorney to defend her, unless he was keen just to take her money, knowing in advance her chances of losing were 99%.
Not surprised. With the polarization that has occurred in the US, Portland, OR has become a Mecca for intolerant illiberals. And because of the general groupthink in the Portland culture they are not challenged when they veer into hate, anti-Semitism or violence.
Charles - I'm making a Public Service Announcement here regarding a respondent to your post:
"T-1000" is SPAMMING other commenters here with the same "whataboutism" LlE he wrote to you. And he is spamming that "whataboutism" LlE in the DISHONEST attempt to deflect away from the *valid* point you and others have made here.
Put simply, T is trying to SMEAR everyone here as a racist. And he is doing so by simply making up the claim (ie LYlNG) that "the ENTIRE Free Press community" “here” (as he puts it) would DISAGREE with the idea "that "shunning" a doctor who refused to treat people based on race, gender, etc. would be ok" because "[such shunning] would be "cancel culture"."
Of course, T got *flustered* when I pointed out the fact that NO one here even OBJECTED to (let alone DISAGREED with) that idea when I EXPLICITLY declared (multiple times, to multiple people here) it is an "*absolute* RIGHT" to "shun into oblivion" anyone who refuses to treat any and all trans OR blacks for ALL afflictions (including, for example, car crashes, being shot by a criminal, etc etc ad nauseam) simply *because* they are trans or black.
Put simply, NO one - not ONE SINGLE person here - DISAGREED with the idea of shunning such doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc.
Talk about *definitive* proof AGAINST T's FRAUDULENT claim that EVERYONE here *would* DISAGREE about shunning such doctors, etc.
However, as I indicated, T got flustered (more like addle brained) when his LlE was unmasked. So NOW he's going around and *confessing* the fact that MY point is true: that 'NO one here DISAGREED with the idea of shunning such a doctor'. In other words, T himself has PROVEN his accusation that 'EVERYONE would DISAGREE with the idea of shunning such a doctor' to be a *blatant* FALSEHOOD.
LOL!
What is truly bizarre, though, is that - instead of simply *admitting* the fact HE has now PROVEN his OWN accusation to be a LlE - T has taken to trying to PRETEND that:
"NO ONE - not ONE SINGLE person - disagreeing with the idea of shunning"
equals:
"the ENTIRE...community" here DISAGREES with the idea of shunning.
Unbelievable as it may sound, T is now literally going around and repeatedly declaring that *if* NO ONE can be found who DISAGREES with the idea of shunning, that means EVERYONE DISAGREES with the idea of shunning.
Or, put more simply, T is declaring "NO ONE" = 'EVERYONE".
THAT is T's 'argument' here.
Talk about the very *definition* of irrational INSANITY!
Since I have never been to this site before, it was at this point I recognized the fact that T is NOT here to logically and honestly identify the facts of reality about anything. Instead, he is apparently the resident Leftist GRIEFER who will say ANY insane thing in order to try to ABUSE other human beings.
That is the purpose of my PSA here: to help people avoid making my mistake of presuming T is an honest and rational human being rather than a nihilistic animal who gets its SICK kicks from ABUSING others. It is my hope people will simply BLOCK the creature - as I have now done - depriving it of victims so that it can't get its jollies from GRIEFING here anymore.
Not surprised. With the polarization that has occurred in the US, Portland, OR has become a Mecca for intolerant illiberals. And because of the general groupthink in the Portland culture they are not challenged when they veer into hate, anti-Semitism or violence.
“For Yahweh’s portion is his people. Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. For the LORD’S portion and chosen share is His people; Jacob (Israel) is the allotment of His inheritance.”
You know if she said this about blacks or trans she'd be gone by now. But Jews? meh
Nah. The entire Free Press community would defend it as "Free Speech" and would call ANY criticism "cancel culture."
>>> sw: "You know if she said this about blacks or trans she'd be gone by now"
>>T-1: "Nah. The entire Free Press community..."
Since "The entire Free Press community", let alone Right-wing philosophy in general, is NOT the dominant philosophy in State licensing, government medical care, or the medical profession in general, your "Nah" here grotesquely false and duplicitous. THOSE institutions' response to a nurse declaring she would refuse to treat "blacks or trans" is precisely what sw identifies. What's more, you KNOW this to be true. That is why you deliberately and dishonestly committed the Fallacy of Dropping Context, intentionally switching the individuals sw WAS referencing for others whom he was NOT referencing.
Put simply, you tried to EVADE and DISTRACT AWAY from the blatant HYPOCRISY of those whom sw was referencing by playing the fallacious "whataboutism" game - ie by pointing to some OTHER group and declaring they are supposed hypocrites on the subject.
Talk about blatantly *confessing* the fact you REJECT reason as your epistemological standard and honesty as your moral standard.
>>"The entire Free Press community would defend it as "Free Speech" and would call ANY criticism "cancel culture.""
Given the Right's attitudes towards hospitals and doctors who perform "gender affirming" treatments and surgeries on consenting adults, I would not be surprised to see them defend a nurse who made such a claim about providing that SPECIFIC type of medical care (just as they defend nurses, doctors, and hospitals who refuse to provide abortions, for instance). I have not, however, seen any evidence that the Right would defend such a nurse if she declared she would refuse to treat a trans who, say, had been in a car accident or who had been shot by a criminal etc, simply *because* they are trans. NOR have I seen any evidence that the Right would defend such a nurse if she declared she would refuse to treat a black person simply *because* they are black.
Given that you make the claim "The entire Free Press community" would defend a nurse who refuses to treat - in ANY way for ALL afflictions - a trans person or a black person - for ALL afflictions - I am certain you have the evidence needed to back up such a sweeping claim. So, please provide a link to The Free Press itself making an argument that anyone in the medical profession has the right to refuse ANY and ALL treatment of a trans person *because* they are trans. And please provide a link to The Free Press itself making an argument that anyone in the medical profession has the right to refuse ANY and ALL treatment of a black person *because* they are black.
Since you declare "the ENTIRE Free Press community" [emphasis added] would make this argument, it should be EASY for you to provide such evidence.
We'll wait.
Wow....fascinating....really.
You wrote a lot. A hit dog hollers, I guess.
Evidence?
This discussion board.
Tell you what, when I get my "DEI = DIE" article from The Free Press about that white, female helicopter pilot, I'll change my mind. ;)
Deal?
>>"Evidence? This discussion board."
So you can NOT point to even a SINGLE post where The Free Press has defended, as "Free Speech", ANYONE in the medical profession who has declared they refuse to treat ALL trans or ALL blacks for ANY reason (car crash, being shot by a criminal, etc). And you can NOT point to even a SINGLE post where The Free Press has declared criticisms of such a (non-existent) medical professional is "cancel culture" and must be stopped.
In other words, your accusation was a willful and blatant LlE on your part - one committed to EVADE the fact of your TRIBE’S moral hypocrisy.
Got it.
Thanks for *proving* my point that reason is NOT your epistemological standard and honesty is NOT your moral standard.
>>"You wrote a lot. A hit dog hollers, I guess."
LOL!
You apparently didn't read anything I've written on "this discussion board". (So much for your claim to have read this discussion board - aka so much for it supposedly being "evidence" for your claim. That was just ANOTHER of your LlES).
*I* have EXPLICITLY been making the case - against everyone here - that this nurse has the RIGHT to make such claims. Moreover, *I* have been making the case - ALSO against everyone here - that she and others have the RIGHT of free association (ie that the State has NO right to put a gun to ALL their *bigoted* heads and FORCIBLY FORBID them from associating with one another in ANY consensual capacity, including health care).
In fact, I have EXPLICITLY argued that she (or a doctor, or a hospital) has the "*absolute* RIGHT" to hang up a sign saying 'NO Jews Allowed' or 'NO Trans Allowed' or 'NO Blacks' allowed.' Those were my EXPLICIT examples. And essentially EVERYONE on this "discussion board" (with perhaps the exception of Lizzie) vehemently REJECTED that argument. That FACT *proves* the LlE of your claim that "this discussion board" is evidence “the ENTIRE Free Press community” would support, in ANY way, the idea of a nurse in a hospital refusing to treat any and all trans or blacks simply *because* they are trans or black.
Contrary to your LlE here, they REJECT that *right*. Instead, they RIGHTEOUSLY demand to VIOLATE that right.
Moreover, I ALSO - *very* explicitly - argued that everyone has the “*absolute* RIGHT”here to "shun into oblivion" anyone and everyone who supported a 'NO Jews' 'NO Trans' 'NO Blacks' policies. And absolutely NO one disagreed with that point. That FACT also *proves* the LlE of your claim that "this discussion board" is evidence that "the ENTIRE Free Press community" would REJECT such shunning (ie would REJECT "cancel culture") when it comes to people practicing such policies against trans or blacks.
Contrary to your LlE here, they EMBRACE that *right*. They RIGHTEOUSLY demand to PRACTICE that right.
Put simply, YOU are the "dog" that was 'hollering' here. I’ve simply whacked a newspaper (aka the facts) across your nose and told you to STOP your barking (aka to stop your LYlNG).
The truth of the matter is that - contrary to all your 'hollering' - you and most everyone else here are the SAME. You are but competing SECTS of the same EVIL philosophy. ALL of you *reject* the individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort. ALL of you instead treat the individual as your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires. And ALL of you simply SQUABBLE amongst yourselves over the 'best' way to dispose of your human CHATTEL so as to satisfy your desire to VIOLATE “bigots”.
You ALL share the evil FEELING that bigots (real or imagined) somehow *magically* LOSE their right to their OWN life and their OWN effort and *magically* become your PROPERTY, simply *because* they are supposedly bigots.
THAT is the obscene evil principle you ALL preach and practice. Of course, like ALL rival gangs, you violently disagree with one another over WHO should be your gang’s enemy (ie over WHO qualifies as a bigot).
In other words, you‘re just a Crip to their Bloods - mindless thugs (or, to continue your analogy, feral snarling dogs) one and all.
Thanks for helping *prove* that point with your 'hollering' here. :)
Bari Weiss supported Joe Rogan and his guest using racial slurs against blacks on his podcasts.
She said those who complained were a "leftist mob, shutting down free speech" and engaged in "cancel culture."
"Bari Weiss..."
I'd like a link please. Given your LlES, your EVASIONS, and your HALF-Truths here so far, I don't trust a single thing you say to be an HONEST record of ALL the pertinent facts and context.
Of course, even if true, that would NOT be evidence that Bari or Rogan, let alone "the ENTIRE Free Press community" would refuse to shun a doctor who refuses to treat all blacks simply because they are black. Moreover, it ignores the ACTUAL evidence YOU have (quite UNINTENTIONALLY) provided that people here have NOT rejected shunning that doctor on the basis that would be "shutting down free speech" and engaging in "cancel culture". NOT one of them has rejected that EXPLICIT and DIRECT argument - a point YOU have *repeatedly* pointed out yourself!
You *really* don't do the 'logical argument' thing well, do you?
Write the director of the hospital. I did. As a retired RN, BSN I was deeply offended by her abhorrent statements and I agree her license should be revoked.
>>"her license should be revoked"
No. People have the *right* to freely choose to associate or refuse to associate with her based on their judgement of her words and actions. Forcibly prohibiting everyone and anyone from employing her because you don't LIKE the ideas she expressed is not only a violation of *her* rights, but of *everyone's* rights (ie of those who would hire her based on her nursing abilities, not her ideological convictions).
>>"Write the director of the hospital."
Now THIS is the rights-respecting (rather than rights-violating) approach. As she is rightfully free to make her "statements", you are rightfully free to make your own "statements" expressing your 'offense' at her "abhorrent" statement. You are also rightfully free to withhold any and all association with that hospital so long as she is employed there - as well as inform the hospital you will recommend to anyone and everyone who will listen that they too should refuse to associate with the hospital so long as it chooses to associate with this nurse.
In THIS way, no one violates anyone's rights. Instead you are all EXERCISING your rights.
Your comments are ridiculous. My son was treated at OHSU for multiple days. This vile, horrifically mentally ill woman has a right to free speech in America. She has no right to be employed in healthcare. To think this piece of evil shit had access to my son, his IV, his medications, his food after a football injury is incomprehensible. Her views are aligned with the genocidal, antisemitic Muslim nurses in Australia who were on video saying they’d kill Israelis in the hospital and assured us they already had. There are morals, standards and codes of ethics in healthcare. This woman is also extremely ignorant and low IQ, as she repeatedly refers to a “genocide” taking place in Gaza. No clear thinking, correctly educated, moral person repeats this lie and blood libel. If OHSU refuses to fire this nurse, if the Oregon Board Of Nursing refuses to terminate her license, no one, not just Jews, is safe seeking care at OHSU or at any Oregon healthcare facility.
>>"She has no right to be employed in healthcare."
She has EVERY right to associate with ANYONE and EVERYONE who voluntarily chooses to associate with her. And YOU have NO right to STOP any of them. Contrary to your FEELINGS here, they are NOT your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires. Their life and their effort are their OWN not YOURS.
>>"this piece of evil shit"
You are certainly free NOT to associate with individuals you do not like. You are certainly free NOT to associate with the individuals who hire them. And you are certainly free to try to convince anyone who would hire them or be treated by them to change their minds and NOT associate with her.
And you are free to do all these things because your life and your effort are your OWN. You are NOT the PROPERTY of ANYONE else - just as she is NOT your PROPERTY.
Of course, what you are NOT free to do is put a gun to her head and and the head of EVERYONE else (nor have the State do it for you) and FORCIBLY FORBID all those individuals from VOLUNTARILY interacting with one another (again because THEY are not YOUR PROPERTY). YOU putting a gun to their heads and FORCIBLY FORBIDDING their CONSENSUAL human interactions is *you* VIOLATING *their* rights - ie that makes YOU a "piece of evil shit" WORSE than this nurse (because, as despicable as she is, SHE is violating NO one's rights).
>>"Her views are aligned with the genocidal, antisemitic Muslim nurses in Australia who were on video saying they'd kill Israelis in the hospital and assured us they already had."
This nurse made no such claims or threats about killing any of her patients or wishing to kill any of her patients. She simply stated she wished to EXERCISE her rights of FREE ASSOCIATION and FREE TRADE. That you try to grotesquely equivocate here and declare the EXERCISE of rights is the SAME as the VIOLATION of rights (murder in this case) is *another* EVIL act on your part. It is NO different than you claiming consensual SEX is the same as RAPE.
>>"There are morals and standards and codes of ethics in healthcare."
Every doctor, every nurse, every hospital, and every patient, etc has the right to ask others to associate with them under conditions they voluntarily and mutually agree. What NO one has the right to do is FORCIBLY FORBID them from signing agreements or making standards you don't LIKE - or FORCIBLY DEMAND they sign agreements or set standards you DEMAND.
IF a hospital or a doctor wishes to hire a nurse who is antisemitic, that is properly their RIGHT. Hell, if a hospital or doctor wishes to declare 'No Jews Allowed' (or blacks, or trans, etc), again that is properly their RIGHT. Just as it is properly your right and everyone else's right to SHUN them into OBLIVION.
But what NO one has the right to do is put a GUN to their heads and declare they MUST treat Jews. What NO one has the right to do is put a GUN to their heads and declare IF they do NOT treat Jews, then you will FORCIBLY FORBID them from treating ANYONE, regardless of the voluntary consent of others who WANT to be treated by them.
Put simply, you are committing here the SAME EVIL that was committed against that bakery. You are demanding - at the point of a government gun - that this nurse be FORCED to "Bake that Cake" or forever be FORBIDDEN from baking ever again.
As that was a VILE VIOLATION of the bakers' rights, so to is it a VILE VIOLATION of this nurse's rights.
>>"no one, not just Jews are safe"
If YOU do not feel "safe" interacting with her or anyone else, then you are FREE to WALK AWAY from her (as you are free to try to convince anyone and everyone else to do the same). What you are NOT free to do is substitute, at the point of a gun, YOUR judgement about "safety" (or ANYTHING else) for EVERYONE ELSE'S judgement about *their* OWN safety (that is the EVIL philosophy which created the WHOLESALE violation of rights that was the government's response to Covid). In other words, if others *do* feel "safe" interacting with her, neither you nor anyone else has the *right* to stop them from their consensual interactions.
PERIOD.
Put simply, like the Gazans you (properly) revile, you are treating others as nothing but your meat puppets.
You have to STOP acting like the Gazans. You have to STOP being a Crip to their Bloods.
This is the most unhinged, uneducated, misinformed and frankly, bizarre response to my comment. Are you an American? Do you know anything about healthcare? What nurses and providers do all day? Codes of conduct & laws related to licensure? My husband is a medical provider and has decision making power in the hiring & firing of all employees at medical clinic. This psychotic lunatic, antisemitic piece of shit would be fired immediately for breaking clinic codes of conduct, nursing codes of conduct and for her selfish decision to display her racism & bigotry all over her social media accounts, she put medical facility at risk for numerous investigations, medical record inquires, etc.
OHSU’s reputation would have been severely damaged if she wasn’t fired immediately, it’s still damaged, as moral people wonder how long they knew about this employee’s hate toward Jewish patients and colleagues, yet continued to give her access to patients. It also makes intelligent people question if OHSU is a safe & high quality facility overall.
I’m not sure why you keep regurgitating the fact she has a right to associate and interact with anyone she wants. What’s your point? She absolutely can associate with Nazis in her personal life, where did I say she couldn’t? But she has no right to work in healthcare. Her job as a nurse requires her to give the best care and utilize best practices when treating any patient at OHSU regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economics, etc. She specifically and publicly said to the world she would not treat Jewish patients and hopes they all die “like their ancestors.” You’re insane and delusional if you think she has a right to spew her hate without consequence to her job serving the public as a licensed nurse. Unless you agree with her, in which case, your response makes more sense.
>>"This is the most unhinged, uneducated, misinformed and frankly, bizarre response to my comment. ... Do you know anything about healthcare? ... Codes of conduct & laws related to licensure?"
Since you've misconstrued my argument the same way some others here have - including Tori (though she didn't have your more emotionalist, concrete-bound, knee-jerk reaction *and* she didn't fill her Straw Man attack with your gratuitous insults) - I therefore direct you to the reply I made to Tori, the one she "liked" once she'd understood my *actual* argument rather than the argument she (like you here) *mistook* to be mine:
https://toniairaksinen.substack.com/p/antisemitic-nurse-facing-two-investigations/comment/98357176
>>"You're insane and delusional.... Unless you agree with her, in which case, your response makes more sense."
This, of course, is the same emotional nonsense that some in America spewed at the ACLU back in 1977, when that famed Civil Rights organization defended the rights of neo-Nazis in Skokie, Il, USA. It is sad that - nearly 50 years later - some people *still* have yet to learn the lesson taught back then: that no matter HOW much one HATES a person, that HATE does NOTHING to a person's (and everyone else's) rights. The individual's rights remain - and must be defended - regardless of *any* person's FEELINGS.
Nurses do not have the right to refuse to care for a patient. We DO have the right to request a change of assignment for sincerely held moral or ethical reasons. I have never seen a coworker do that in 37 years of practice. If she harbors such hate in her heart, nursing is not the job for her. She is a stain on our profession and I hope she loses her license as she lacks the compassion and judgment to do the job as is required.
Thank you for speaking out as a nurse. Your response, I believe, is representative of the majority of nurses and physicians in America. At least I hope it is. However, you’re correct, she’s a stain on the profession and I believe on OHSU as well. Unfortunately, there are many like her. A public IG account, Physicians Against Antisemitism, reveals the horrific moral depravity of antisemitic healthcare workers in the United States on a daily basis.
I also want to thank you for your 35 yrs of service as a nurse. Your response offers insight into how you approach your incredibly important and extremely challenging job. I have no doubt that the thousands of patients you’ve served over the years received wonderful care.
Nurses are heroes. They are the glue that allows things to run smoothly and they have the most direct patient care. It’s important to speak up loudly and clearly against healthcare workers of any kind displaying and/or spewing their hate of a minority group, or ANY group of people publicly or even privately in the workplace. It’s also important for facility directors and professional organizations to speak out and stand strongly against antisemitism specifically. I haven’t seen this, I’ve seen the opposite, which further erodes trust and makes one wonder if the Hippocratic oath is still a beacon of moral clarity and challenges the assumption that healthcare workers, including mental health providers and those in allied disciplines are the moral, intelligent, caring healers many assume them to be.
>>"Nurses do not have the right to refuse to care for a patient."
So your claim is that nurses do NOT have the right of free association. On what basis do you make that claim?
Nurses are NOT the PROPERTY of others. Others have NO claim to the life and effort of nurses - any more slave owners had a claim to the life and effort of blacks.
I suspect you are conflating contractual agreements with rights (especially given your reference to 'changes of assignment'). Contracts and rights are NOT the same thing.
>>"I hope she loses her license"
Since she is NOT violating anyone's rights (because she is NOT the PROPERTY of others and thus NO one has a 'right' to her services), but she is instead EXERCISING her right to her OWN life and her OWN effort, NO one - certainly NOT the State - has the right to put a gun to her head and FORCIBLY forbid her from interacting with anyone else who VOLUNTARILY wishes to interact with her. NOR does anyone - certainly NOT the State - have the right to put a gun to anyone else's head and FORCIBLY forbid them from VOLUNTARILY interacting with her. NONE of those individuals are your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires. And they are certainly NOT the State's PROPERTY, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires.
Treating other human beings as your PROPERTY is the OPPOSITE of "compassion" and rational "judgement". It is the very *definition* of EVIL.
Your lust to put a gun to other people's heads because you don't LIKE their ideas is NO different that the lust of the Gazans to put guns to the heads of Israelis because they don't LIKE the Israelis' ideas.
Talk about *proving* my point that some here are nothing but Crips to the Gazans' Bloods!
Some professions hold you to a higher standard of moral conduct. Accepting that role is acceptance of that responsibility. She is not forced to be a nurse. Caring for other human beings at their most vulnerable moments of their lives is a privilege, not a right. That's why you study and take an exam to receive a license,which you maintain by keeping your knowledge base current. The public trusts you to do the right thing. Many professions have a moral/ ethical code that holds your behavior to a higher standard. You are free to choose a profession of that nature or not.
I base my knowledge of nursing on 37 years in the profession. What do you base yours on?
>>"Some professions hold you to a higher standard of moral conduct."
The State treating the individual as its PROPERTY, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires, all at the point of its GUN, is the LOWEST "standard of moral conduct" possible - ie it is the very DEFINITION of EVIL.
Yet you hold that grotesque EVIL up as the 'height' of morality.
That is called a complete moral INVERSION!
>>"Accepting that role is acceptance of that responsibility"
That is false.
If YOU wish to accept an idea, you are quite free to do so. And you (and doctors, hospitals, patients, et al) are free to associate ONLY with those who preach and practice that same idea - ie you are ALL free to choose to act in accord with your "moral/ ethical code". Moreover, you are ALL free NOT to associate with anyone who does NOT accept your ideas.
And you are FREE to do ALL these things because you are the SOLE, monopolistic owner of your OWN life and your OWN effort. As such, you - and you ALONE - dispose of YOUR life and effort as YOU, not anyone else, sees fit.
Of course, what you are NOT free to do is put a government gun to the heads of ANYONE else and FORCIBLY FORBID them from VOLUNTARILY interacting with one another if they do NOT accept your idea. And that is because, like you, they are the SOLE, monopolistic owners of THEIR lives and THEIR effort. As such, they - and they ALONE - dispose of THEIR lives and effort as THEY, not YOU, see fit.
Put simply, if a doctor or a hospital (or anyone else) so wishes, they have the *absolute* RIGHT to declare 'No Jews Allowed'. Of course, everyone else has the *absolute* RIGHT to SHUN them into oblivion.
Your (proper) disgust and horror at the idea of 'No Jews Allowed' (be it from someone baking a cake or treating a wound) doesn't CHANGE these FACTS.
To put it succinctly: your *feelings* do NOT make *anyone* your CHATTEL.
>>"I base my knowledge...on 37 years in the profession. What do you base yours on?"
On the FACT that the individual is NOT your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires.
It is a shame that, in *all* those 37 years, you NEVER learned that *basic* moral FACT.
They DO NOT have that right in the United States. The demonic, Jew hating nurse was fired from OHSU. Next, her license will be revoked. As it should be.
No offense, Dude, but what you’re saying is idiotic. Professions have standards — that’s what makes them professions. “I have the right to hire that unethical lawyer.” No you don’t, because his ethics fails deny him access to law as a profession. It’s that simple. If you can’t live up to the standard of *premum non nocere*, you don’t have a right to work in healthcare. It’s not a right, it’s a privilege.
>>"Professions have standards"
No. Individuals have standards. And every individual is rightfully free to associate with those who agree with his ideas - just as every individual is rightfully free to refuse to associate with those who disagree with his ideas.
>>"I have the right to hire that unethical lawyer"
Invalid comparison. All professions related to law (from the military, to the police, to the courts, etc) pertain to the use of coercive force - ie non-consensual interaction. Any and all other professions - including medicine - pertain to VOLUNTARY human interaction, aka consensual interaction.
Of course, the ONE thing that is true of ALL professions - including law - is that NO one in ANY of them may VIOLATE the rights of ANY individual for ANY reason. NO one - including the law - may treat the individual as their CHATTEL.
>>"you don't have a right to work in healthcare"
You have EVERY right to interact in ANY way with ANY other individual who VOLUNTARILY consents to that interaction. This is true whether one is talking about 'baking that cake' or 'treating that wound'. And that is because your life and your effort (and the lives and effort of ALL those other people) are your OWN. They are YOUR monopolistic PROPERTY.
You are NO one's CHATTEL.
What you do NOT properly have (and the State certainly does NOT have) is the right to put a gun to someone else's head and FORCIBLY FORBID them from freely associating with anyone and everyone who voluntarily agrees with their ideas (be they doctors, patients, tinkers, tailors, or candlestick makers). NONE of those people are your PROPERTY. You have NO right to dispose of them as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires.
In other words, contrary to your principle here, bigots do NOT lose their right to their OWN lives and their OWN effort - they do NOT become your PROPERTY - simply *because* they are bigots.
Put simply, your claim here that other human beings ARE your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires, is not only "idiotic", but is the very *definition* of EVIL.
You’re a wackjob. If you’re a lawyer in Texas and you violate the (rather voluminous) TX lawyer’s code of conduct, you are from then on (or at least until reinstatement), denied the right to practice law in Texas. End of story.
“your claim here that other human beings ARE your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires, is not only "idiotic", but is the very *definition* of EVIL.” I don’t want to be offensive, but that is literally insane. And not what I’m saying at all.
She consents to treating anyone who needs care in the facility that employs her. You’re saying she has a right to choose which people deserve to be cared for. Can she refuse to treat black people? Criminals - rapists, murderers, etc.? People who have strokes, heart attacks, because they smoked and are obese and it’s their own fault? Alcoholics with liver disease? If that’s the case, she shouldn’t be working in a hospital. I’m sure she could find a job where there is zero chance she’d have to care for Jews. Perhaps Gaza?
>>"She consents to treating anyone who needs care in the facility that employs her."
That is not true, which is why everyone - including you - is upset here. She has explicitly stated she does NOT consent to treating Jews.
>>"she shouldn't be working in a hospital"
If a hospital wishes to hire *only* employees who will treat everyone and anyone, that is their right. As such, they have the right to refuse to hire - or to fire - anyone who does not consent to such a condition of employment.
Of course, the converse is true as well. If a hospital wishes to hire employees who will only treat certain conditions or certain people and not others, that is ALSO their right. And, in turn, anyone (doctors, nurses, medical personnel, patients, etc) who doesn't like that fact is free NOT to associate with that hospital in any way, shape, or form.
Put simply, a hospital properly has the *absolute* right to say 'No Jews (or Blacks or Trans or Christians or Muslims etc etc ad nauseam) Allowed' - just as WE properly have the *absolute* right to shun them into oblivion.
What we do NOT properly have (and the State certainly does NOT have) is the right to put a gun to their heads and FORCIBLY FORBID them from freely associating with anyone and everyone who voluntarily agrees with their ideas (be they doctors, patients, etc). NONE of those people are OUR PROPERTY. We have NO right to dispose of them as WE see fit, to satisfy OUR desires.
Put simply, contrary to your principle here, bigots do NOT lose their right to their OWN lives and their OWN effort simply *because* they are bigots.
Perhaps they were unaware that she had restrictions on whom she would treat. It may well be that this became an issue subsequent to her employment. In that case they have every right to dismiss her, unless it is hospital policy to refuse to treat Jews. However, if Oregon State University Hospital is a community hospital (as opposed to a private one) it is required to treat everyone who comes there for treatment.
Pluralistic societies do not tolerate hate
"Pluralistic societies do not tolerate hate"
Rights-defending States do not "tolerate" - ie they STOP - the VIOLATION of the individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort. Whether one LIKES or HATES an individual and/or his ideas doesn't change this fact.
The SAME is true when it comes to the EXERCISE of the individual's rights. Whether one FEELS that the reason a person disposes of his OWN life and his OWN effort is based on "hate" or "love" or ANY other emotion does NOT somehow *magically* transform that individual into one's PROPERTY, to be disposed of as one sees fit, to satisfy one's desires. The individual life and effort REMAIN his OWN regardless of one's FEELINGS about that individual's motivations.
Put simply, one's EMOTIONS do not make the individual one's CHATTEL to do with as one WISHES. THAT is the EVIL 'thinking' and behavior of those you rail against in your other posts here. You should NOT be preaching, let alone practicing, THEIR grotesque philosophy. That just makes you a Crip to their Bloods.
Dude, I suggest you use more CAPS. That will make your argument more RIGHT
“Associate” is a funny word choice for providing medical care and it’s the hospitals right to evaluate her ability to do her job and fire her if she cannot or will maliciously refuse care. We all have the *right* the live and receive care in a hospital.
>>""Associate" is a funny word choice for providing medical care"
It is a very COMMON word when one speaks of rights (as in the right of "Free Association" - which encompasses ALL voluntary human interaction, including interactions involving "medical care").
>>"it's the hospital's right to evaluate her"
Despite me EXPLICITLY making exactly such points, you seem to *feel* - for some unidentified reason - that I disagree with this idea.
On the basis of the words I have *actually* written here, please identify how exactly you came to this bizarre, counter-factual conclusion.
>>"We all have the *right* the live [sic]"
This statement doesn't make grammatical sense. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect you mean "We all have the *right* TO live". If so, I must point out the fact that NO one has the "right" to live *by* treating OTHER human beings as their PROPERTY. In other words, the Southern Slave Owner had NO right to live by forcing blacks pick cotton - just as you have NO right to live by forcing doctors to treat your wounds.
IF an individual VOLUNTARILY agrees to pick cotton for you, then you have the contractual PERMISSION to live by that means - just as IF an individual VOLUNTARILY agrees to treat your wound for you, then you have the contractual PERMISSION to live by that means. But if NO one VOLUNTARILY agrees to do either of those things FOR you, then - to put it in crude terms - you are sh*t out of luck.
Put simply, the fact that you WISH to live does NOT *magically* place a claim on ANYONE else's life and effort. NO one is your CHATTEL - not for ANY reason.
>>"We all have the *right* [to]...receive care in a hospital"
Contrary to your EVIL premise, there is NO such thing as the "right" to the life and effort of other human beings. Again, NO one is your CHATTEL.
No ifs.
No ands.
No buts.
PERIOD.
A lot of wording…for nothing.
And you land on “Evil”. Which is telling of your unbalanced morals.
Look, CAPSLOCK isn’t a good use of your time…
I would encourage you to absorb the thoughts of those around you. Assuming you don’t live in a lonely bowl of word salad? Although I think you might.
Forcing this narrative down the (very) few sub-stackers’ feeds is pretty darn boring considering everyone else’s HUMAN instinct and that of a medical board says the nurse’s *right* (as you so obsessively write) is not a nuanced issue, it’s a potential for a medical malpractice issue.
But your nuance, and sad excuse for mock trial precedent of “cotton picking” (good lord you are reaching).
I’ll go back to living life now lol.
Note that Lisa did not address a SINGLE word I wrote. Instead she simply vomited invective.
One thus thanks Lisa for confessing the fact the ONLY 'defense' she has for treating other human beings as her PROPERTY is the kindergartner's 'Nu uh, you a poopyhead!'
Licensure =/= property. End of.
Now chill out and read what people are actually saying instead of repeat-puking up your bizarre obsessions.
As far as I am concerned, the freedom of expression is a very difficult question and it is at the core of our democracy . But at this point I still wonder if it should be limited to opinions while calls for murder or genocide should not be regarded as a normal exercise of this freedom. Indeed , one thing is to say you detest the Jews, which is acceptable. Nobody is obliged to like the Jews. But it is quite another thing to encourage murder as she said she would do , if as a nurse she would have a jewish patient. Likewise , calls to genocide Israel should not be regarded as an acceptable form of this freedom. However, however , who will be in charge of drawing the fine line between the two? Only if God was to be appointed to do the job, I wouldn’t be worried. But if not? Setting ethic limitations to neutralize the floods of hatred can turn into a censorship. So I personally wonder what would be the less « worse ».
>>"it is quite another thing to encourage murder as she said she would do"
I may have missed it, but I don't recall seeing this nurse demand the murder of Jews here (ie she didn't make any statements like the Australian nurses, who said they had - and would again in the future - murder Jews). As such, I am left to presume you are referencing her preference for who should win and who should lose in the war being fought between the Israelis and the Gazans.
If that is indeed the case, then is your argument here: the State should FORCIBLY DICTATE, at the point of a government gun, WHO they should and should NOT be 'allowed' to want to win a war in some other country?
On the basis of what *right* of the individual to his OWN life and his OWN effort do you make such a demand? What *right* is being VIOLATED by statements about who should win or lose - live or die - in such a war?
Put simply, what SPECIFIC right are YOU supposedly violating if you come up to me and say: "I WISH you were dead!" or "I HOPE you die!"?
It would certainly be rude. But I do not see what right of mine you would be violating with that rudeness.
>>"who will be in charge of drawing the fine line"
Your question suggests a belief in the idea that rights are simply the arbitrary desires of human beings. This is not the case. No one's whims draw the line when it comes to free speech or free association. The facts of reality (ie the individual's inviolable, monopolistic right to his OWN life and his OWN effort) draws the line.
>>"Setting ethic limitations to neutralize the floods of hate"
Since the individual does not exist to satisfy your desires or my desires for ANYTHING, we have no right to put a gun to ANY individual's head and FORCE them to achieve that end. They are NOT our PROPERTY, to be disposed of as WE see fit, to satisfy OUR desires. As such, no matter how supposedly "good" (or "less worse") the consequences of us treating our fellow man as nothing but a meat puppet, those supposed "good" ends do NOT justify those means. In other words, contrary to the premise here, there is NEVER - EVER - a justification for VIOLATING another human beings - be that justification "less jews" or "less hate".
To put it in stark, concrete terms: no matter how "good" (or "less worse") a man FEELS the consequences of RAP E might be - no matter WHAT rationalizations he might concoct - there is NEVER, EVER a justification for VIOLATING (RAPlNG) a woman.
This fact is true of ANY and ALL rights. There is NEVER, EVER a justification for treating an individual as one's CHATTEL - no matter WHAT one hopes to achieve by doing so.
All of that said, please note that the issue I was addressing with my posts was NOT the issue of "free speech". As I have repeatedly stated throughout the comment section here, everyone - be it the hospital, other nurses, doctors, patients, the general public, etc - has the *absolute* right to shun this nurse into oblivion BECAUSE of what she said about not treating any Jews and/or BECAUSE she followed through on what she said.
An individual has the RIGHT to shun her *because* of her "speech" and/or her actions.
Put simply, as her refusal to treat (ie to associate with) Jews is her *absolute* right, so TOO it is everyone else's *absolute* right to REFUSE to associate with her IF they so wish. BOTH those acts of voluntarily REFUSING to associate are the EXERCISE of the individual's right of "free association" and "free trade". Moreover, NEITHER of those acts of REFUSING to associate is a violation of ANYONE'S right of "free speech".
Of course, as I have also noted throughout the comment section here, everyone - be it the hospital, other nurses, doctors, patents, the general public, etc - ALSO has the *absolute* right to freely associate and trade with her if they so wish. Such voluntary interactions (ie interactions NOT aimed at VIOLATING anyone's rights) are ALSO the exercise of their monopolistic right to their OWN life and their OWN effort.
It is the VIOLATION of *that* right of free association and trade between consenting adults I was addressing here.
As you have likely noticed, MANY in the comment section here were demanding the State FORCIBLY FORBID the nurse from engaging in ANY voluntary medical interactions with ANYONE else who might wish to partake in a such consensual interaction. In other words, MANY here were demanding that the State treat the nurse and everyone else as ITS PROPERTY, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires.
THAT is what I have tried to explain is WRONG here.
As noted above, because the individual is the SOLE, monopolistic owner of his OWN life and his OWN effort, NO ONE - not you, not me, not the State - NO ONE has the 'right' to FORCIBLY FORBID such consensual interactions (ie no one has the 'right' to treat her and the rest of those people as their PROPERTY).
PERIOD.
No ifs
No ands
No buts.
Treating human beings as one's PROPERTY is the very *definition* of EVIL. It is the philosophy of the Gazans. And their *practice* of that philosophy is WHY they MUST be stopped.
Unfortunately, as I have tried to point out, many (FAR too many) here WANT to practice that EVIL philosophy themselves. In other words, their 'beef' with people the Gazans is NOT that the Gazans treat the individual as their PROPERTY. Their ONLY 'beef' with people like the Gazans is that the FEEL the Gazans aren't disposing of that CHATTEL the 'right' way.
Put simply, the people here feel THEY know how to dispose of human PROPERTY 'better' (or "less worse") than the Gazans. That is WHY they *righteously* declare they may dispose of this nurse (and anyone who voluntary wants to associate with her) as they see fit, to satisfy their desires. It is their *fervent* belief that THEY know the 'right' way to run a Slave Pen.
I have been endeavoring to dissuade them of that EVIL idea.
You cannot refuse to provide medical care to anyone.
>>"You cannot refuse to provide medical care to anyone."
That is indeed what some laws declare - just as some laws once declared that you could not refuse to treat a black person as a slave. I do not dispute here the *existence* of such laws. Like the Abolitionists, I dispute the *validity* of such laws. As I have *explicitly* argued, such laws are a VIOLATION of every individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort.
Others here have made your same mistake about my argument - including our host Tori. I thus direct you to her post and my correction of her misapprehension. I hope it clears up any confusion you have about my argument AND about the validity of your assertion here.
https://toniairaksinen.substack.com/p/antisemitic-nurse-facing-two-investigations/comment/98304997?utm_source=activity_item#comment-98357176?utm_source=activity_item
Someone should explain that HAMAS doesn't get to start a war, commit war crimes, lose the war and then claim to be the victim.
This is great writing. Accurate and to the point. Bravo
Should lose her license immediately
>>"Should lose her license immediately"
No. People have the right to freely choose to associate or refuse to associate with her based on their appraisal of her words and actions. Prohibiting everyone from employing her because you don't like the ideas she expressed is not only a violation of HER rights, but of EVERYONE'S rights.
I am a retired nurse, as an RN in a clinical environment, you do not get to choose whom you treat. I’ve treated criminals and rapists. If you violate your oath, you lose your license.
>>"you do not get to choose whom you treat"
That is rightfully up to you and the person who employs you - NOT the State or anyone else.
>>"If you violate your oath, you lose your license."
I don't dispute this is the current practice - just as I would not have disputed slavery was the then-current practice in the historic South. What I *am* disputing is the idea that the State has the 'right' to engage in this practice - just as I would have disputed the idea that the State had the 'right' to engage in slavery.
Both practices are wrong for the *same* reason: they are, as I noted, the violation of not only your right to freely practice your profession, but a violation of everyone else's right to hire you if they so wish.
>>"I've treated criminals and rapists."
And, if that is a contractual condition you have voluntarily agreed to for employment with a given hospital or doctor, then you are properly held to that agreement. Just as, if - as part of your contractual agreement with a hospital or doctor - they have voluntarily agreed to let you choose whom you will or will not treat, then they are properly held to that agreement.
Of course, the State has NO right to forcibly dictate (as it currently does) to either you OR the hospital/doctor/employer what contractual agreement you both VOLUNTARILY choose as the conditions for the two of you associating with each other.
Put simply, NO one - not a Jewish person, not a Trans person, not a rapist - NO one has a *right* to dispose of YOUR life and YOUR effort as THEY see fit. IF you refuse to associate with (treat) such individuals, that is your RIGHT. And the State has NO right to PUNISH you for EXERCISING your rights.
That is the point I was making.
Naturally, just as you have the RIGHT to associate or refuse to associate with ANYONE for ANY reason, so too everyone else (hospitals, doctors, patients, the rest of the world) has the right to associate or refuse to associate with *you* for any reason - including your choices of association.
In other words, you properly have every right to hang a sign on your practice which reads: "No Jews Allowed". And everyone else properly has the right to shun you into oblivion. But NO one has the right to put a GUN to your head and FORBID you from working for, or treating, anyone who AGREES with (or doesn't care about) your anti-Jewish bigotry. NO one gets to treat you as THEIR PROPERTY, to be disposed of as THEY see fit, to satisfy THEIR desires. This is *especially* true of the State - which properly exists to STOP all such violators, not *systematize* their violations at the point of its GUN.
You are just so wrong.
"You are just so wrong."
Sorry, but 'Nu uh!' ain't an argument. Try again.
You think you’re extremely smart. You aren’t. You just talk a good game.
Nu uh is your argument lol. Let’s leave it to the lawyers to wrap this violation of the oath nurses take in a bow. Low standards of human behavior is all I’m hearing from your trolls. Really hard sell to protect this person’s job when she is a liability.
Did you just compare enabling service discrimination based on race or religion to slavery? Come off it you old goat.
Keliren posted the following response here, then quickly blocked me in the hopes I wouldn't see it or be able to respond to it - all so that it would FALSELY appear as if I had no rational response to her(?) post.
Talk about dishonest!
"Did you just compare enabling service discrimination based on race or religion to slavery? Come off it you old goat."
No. I compared:
'Treating a bigot's life and effort as your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires'
to
'Treating a black person's life and effort as your PROPERTY, to be disposed of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires'
If you can NOT see the fact that both acts are the *same* VIOLATION of the individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort, that is *your* moral failing, not mine.
Goodbye.
The comment is still there. I think everyone on this thread sees you’re unwell.
>>"The comment is still there."
One thanks Lisa for confessing the fact she doesn't grasp the SIMPLE concept of "blocked me". That level of *lack* of understanding certainly explains the rest of your posts here about *far* more COMPLEX concepts.
>>"you're unwell"
Lisa has now spent her last few post vomiting nothing but vitriol at me. Since she has reduced herself to nothing but a mindlessly SNARLING ANIMAL, there is nothing rational left to do but BLOCK the ABUSER.
At least she'll now LEARN what the concept of "blocked me" actually means. LOL
Um, no . This is not an issue of ‘free speech’- sorry. This is an issue of professional ethics and safety for patients who are subject to treatment in any facility she works at. She has a right to say that but not a right to treat patients if she makes it clear she won’t treat patients based on their identity.
>>"This is an issue of professional ethics"
Like Ari here, you seem to have misapprehended my argument. I did not make a "free speech" argument. I made a "free association" and "free trade" argument.
>>"She has a right to say that"
We agree on this idea.
>>"but not a right to treat patients if she makes it clear she won't treat patients based on their identity"
We vehemently disagree on this idea.
I would direct you to my second post to Ari in this very thread (it begins with the quote: "You do not get to choose whom you treat"). You will find arguments there which rebut this claim you have baldly asserted (ie have in no way supported) here.
Sorry dude, but you’re talking out of your a$$. There’s a difference between whether or not you can have a cake made and health care. You can spout as much pseudo intellectual bs here as your heart desires, but you don’t know what you’re talking about.
>>"Sorry dude, but you're talking out of your a$$"
"Sorry dude", but the kindergartner's 'Nu uh, you a poopyhead!' ain't an argument.
This is a discussion about advanced intellectual concepts. One would *hope* anyone seeking to speak about them would do so at THAT intellectual level, not the level of a pre-rational child.
Try again.
>>"There's a difference between whether or not you can have a cake made and health care."
When it comes to your right to your OWN life and your OWN effort and WHO has the RIGHT to dispose of them - you or others - NO, there is NO difference between them. Moreover, you have said NOTHING, and provided NO evidence, to even support - let alone prove - your Southern Slave Owner idea to the contrary.
The fact is, whether you are interacting with someone to 'Bake that Cake' or 'Treat that Wound', your rights (and theirs) remain the SAME. In other words, contrary to your EVIL premise here, that individual does NOT *magically* become your PROPERTY, for you to dispose of as YOU see fit, to satisfy YOUR desires in *either* instance.
Put simply, just as it was a VIOLATION of the black person's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort for him to be treated as the PROPERTY of his "Master" - regardless of whether that "Master" commanded him (at the point of a government GUN) to "Bake that Cake" or "Treat my Wound", so too it is a VIOLATION of ALL individuals' rights to their OWN lives and their OWN effort for them to be treated as *your* PROPERTY - regardless of whether you command him (at the point of a government GUN) to "Bake that Cake" or "Treat your Wound".
But thanks for confessing the fact you FEEL... (can't say "THINK", because you can't provide a single FACT of REALITY to support your Southern Slave Owner idea; instead you can only stomp your feet and spit invective) ...you FEEL that YOU have the 'right' to the life and effort of OTHERS. And you lay CLAIM to your 'rightful' human PROPERTY when you FEEL it is 'important' to you (like when it comes to your health).
"Sorry dude" but - despite your WISHES to the contrary - NO human being is your CHATTEL. Not when it comes to making your food. NOT when it comes to tending your wounds. Not for ANY reason - EVER.
PERIOD.
That said, I do appreciate you so *righteously* and nakedly declaring that human beings ARE your PROPERTY. Like rap ists, most people try to HIDE the fact that they preach and practice such a blatant EVIL.
“This is a discussion about advanced intellectual concepts”
🤣😂😂🤣
Sorry guy. as a nurse she probably took the Nightingale Oath upon graduation:
I solemnly pledge myself before God and in the presence of this assembly to pass my life in purity and to practice my profession faithfully. I will abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous and will not take or knowingly administer any harmful drug. I will do all in my power to maintain and elevate the standard of my profession and will hold in confidence all personal matters committed to my keeping and all family affairs coming to my knowledge in the practice of my calling. With loyalty will I endeavor to aid the physician in his work and devote myself to the welfare of those committed to my care.
I believe her public statements violate this oath.
>>"I believe her public statements violate this oath."
While there *are* other, legally-binding ethical standards (of which I have identified my objections; see my second response to Ari in this very thread - the one which begins with the quote "You do not get to choose whom you treat"), it is my understanding that the "Nightingale Oath" is a ceremonial, not legal, oath.
you can lose a professional license for something that is unethical in the profession but not illegal. That is what this would come down to I think.
>>"you can lose a professional license for something that is unethical..."
You didn't read the post to which I directed you. I say this because I explicitly addressed the "license" issue in it. Specifically, I identified the fact that the "license" issue is a rights-VIOLATING, not a rights-DEFENDING, action by the State - ie the State has no 'right' to do so, any more that the State had the 'right' to treat blacks as slaves. Neither bigots nor blacks are the PROPERTY of the State, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires.
Put simply, I presented rights-based arguments against such rights-violating State action, the same way Abolitionists presented rights-based arguments against the rights-violating State action of slavery. Thus I, again, direct you to those arguments as *rebuttal* to your assertions here.
Prohibiting everyone from employing her because you don't like the ideas she expressed is not only a violation of her rights, but of EVERYONE'S rights.
I might be misunderstanding you and I am sorry if I am but I was focused on the statement you made before that (the one I have pasted just above). The individual to whom you directed that reply has no power to take away her license. But the licensing board for the particular state does. I assume she could (and should) be fired from the staff at this particular hospital as she does cast doubt on the quality of medical care at this hospital. They should not have to worry about extra staffing in case 'the nurse who hates Jews is on duty'
The state professional organization and state licensing board will take it from there to the extent their power allows. And if the State pulls her license he can appeal the decision. But she is deprived employment only in the nursing profession in that state. That's very limited. Is that a loss of rights severe enough to have a court rule in her favor for license reinstatement?
The oath is ceremonial in professional organizations and the assuming of political office. The current era trivializes oaths it seems but is a brief summary of your mission going forward. You have spent 4 years in medical education and you should be well aware of what this oath means and be willing to practice in the profession to it's utmost ethical standards which should override any personal prejudices.
I wish this woman had enough sense to know that with this attitude she should NOT be anywhere in the medical profession. I am of Christian upbringing but I wouldn't want this kind of person treating a family member. Who knows what the next trigger is going to come down the line to create another prejudice in her mind. Her rationalization for her prejudice is irrational. Frankly, I think she's dangerous because she is ethically weak.
Brigitte Gabriel
@ACTBrigitte
Subscribe
Lebanon was the only Christian-majority nation in the Middle East.
It's where I was born.
We prided ourselves on inclusivity. Always welcoming Arab Muslim refugees from all over the Middle East.
We had the best economy despite having no natural oil. The best universities.
They called Beirut the "Paris of the Middle East" and the Mountains of Lebanon was a tourist destination.
My early childhood was idyllic, my father was a prosperous businessman in town and my mother was at home with me, an only child.
Slowly, the Arab Muslims began to become the majority in Lebanon and our rights began to wither away.
Soon, we would find ourselves unable to leave our small Christian town without fear of being stopped and killed by Arabs. In Lebanon your religion is on your government issued ID.
As the war intensified and the radical Islamists made their way south, my home was hit by an errant rocket and my life was forever changed.
We spent the next almost decade in a bomb shelter, scraping together pennies and eating dandelions and roots just to survive.
If it was not for Israel coming in and surrounding our town, I do not know If I would be here today.
Lebanon is now a country 100% controlled and run by Hezbollah. I lost my country of birth.
I thank God every single day I was able to immigrate to America and live out the dream that BILLIONS of people only dream of having.
Now here in America, my adopted country that I have come to love so much, I see the same threats and warning signs happening now that took place in Lebanon when I was a child.
This is my warning to you, America, reverse course now while you still can.
It's not too late to save our freedom and preserve it for the next generation.
You've posted this duplicate post at me twice, while doing NOTHING to link it to a single word I've written. As such, I must ask why you posted them at me, and to what end?
Are you so stupid that you don’t know that employers can set their own polices about social media? Many companies have prohibitions in place that deal with issues like this. Private companies are not government, and can censor your speech all they want. They can also dictate the consequences of engaging speech that can make tarnish their image. Nothing you screech about in response to my post will matter, because none of the bullshit you come back with has any impact on what private companies can do. They fired her. Period. They were correct in doing so, and she has no recourse. So don’t waste your breath responding with your abject stupidity.
>>"Are you so stupid that you don't know that employers can set their own policies..."
Since *I* made that very argument multiple times here, you've simply made MY point for me while "screeching...bullshit" AT me as if I had argued AGAINST "private companies" doing whatever they wish (aka exercising their RIGHT of free association and free trade).
In other words, you rabidly attacked a Straw Man you manufactured out of your own ignorance here.
No. What *I* EXPLICITLY stated should NOT be done is the revocation of her license. Apparently, to use your* words, YOU are "so stupid that you don't know that employers" do NOT license their employees. It is the STATE, not "private companies", who license nurses et al.
Put simply, your RANT about "abject stupidity" was just you PROJECTING here.
Next time don't let your wild emotions about a subject blind you to what people have ACTUALLY written.
This nurse Ratched can & should lose her job. T'he Oregon Board of Nursing investigate
www.oregon.gov/osbn/pages/index.aspx
this heinous being's behaviour. The problem might be, as it is here in Canada, regulatory bodies are armed with over the top insurance & first class lawyers up the tuchus. So, it's a hard battle to win.
Nonetheless, it is well worth the effort as hate crimes like Ratched has committed can come with LOTS of publicity on social media both old-fashioned (newspapers, radio, cable news) & online.
And a cherry on the sundae...she might even be lynched by State Regulatory Nursing Boards, & US regulatory Nursing bodies, and BASHED AROUND by State politicians, Governors, and may even hit the Big Time in Washington.
There are SO MANY possibilities! Be vigilant & tap into all of them, it is Our right, not a privilege!
This dybek needs be stamped out. She is from the line of haman!
Chodesh Adar (Purim) tov, Shabbat Shalom & Am Israel in Eretz Israel and around the Diaspora!!
Erin (Toronto, Ontario, Canada)
Erin - You responded to a thread where I ended up having to block a person ("Alan, aka DudeInMinnetonka") because he was being intentionally irrational and ABUSIVE. As such, while I received an email notification that you responded to me in that thread, I can neither see your post there, nor respond to it there. Apparently, the blocking of that person blocks the entire thread from my view, including anyone else who posts to that thread (I can't even see the rest of *my* posts there). Thus I have been forced to respond to your post here instead:
>>"First off do you mean Allah or some guy named Alan. If you mean Alan who is he & pls provide link to this person's ideology and his views on Islamic Deflection."
It is interesting to note that you too cannot see Alan's posts in that thread. It would appear you blocked him as well (or perhaps he blocked you). Thus, while I could provide you a link to his post, you would not be able to see it. All I can say is, IF you are *actually* interested in reading his words, you can simply log off substack, then come back to this page. At that point you would be able to read his every inane utterance, though you would be unable to respond to any of them.
>>"I ask of you, Rad4Cap, teach us, enlighten us, all of us, here on this thread, what exactly is, Islamic deflection? We are waiting to understand you Salom aleikum Brother!"
Your overladen snark aside, "Islamic deflection" is the epithet Alan spit at me in place of ANY form of rational discourse regarding the ideas I presented here about rights. So that you may understand the full meaning of his words, I include the full text of his logically-unassailable post here:
>>"Tldr Islamic deflectionism".
LOL
In this context, "Islamic deflectionism" is a malicious attack on me (because Alan *explicitly* declares he didn't even read a single word I wrote), claiming I presented fraudulent arguments about rights as a systemically-practiced act of distraction away from the sins of this nurse and the grinding under the goosestepping heel of the State she supposedly deserves - all in the supposed service of Islam. (Of course, I was *actually* identifying what the individual's rights - and therefore justice - dictate she does and does NOT deserve for her sins here).
In other words, vomiting "Islamic deflectionism" was Alan's ad hom way of *dishonestly* EVADING (aka "deflecting" away from) having to address a single word I *actually* wrote. Instead he cowardly attacked a Straw Man of his own, deliberate manufacture - all the while snivelingly PROJECTING *his* sin of deflection onto me.
Or, put more simply, Alan was practicing Islam's principle of taqiyya. Talk about being NOTHING but a Crip to the Islamists' Bloods! Peas in an EVIL pod indeed!
Hope that answers your questions and identifies the fact your smarm was aimed at the wrong target.
If you have any earnest questions about what *I* actually wrote regarding the nurse and rights, please feel free to ask them here. :)
>>"This nurse...can & should lose her job."
The hospital indeed properly has the right to refuse to associate with (aka employ) her if they see fit.
>>"The Oregon Board of Nursing investigate... might even be lynched by State Regulatory Nursing Boards, & US regulatory Nursing bodies, and BASHED AROUND by State politicians, Governors..."
And all of that would be *wrong*. People properly have the RIGHT to freely choose to associate or refuse to associate with her based on *their* judgement of her words and actions. The State *forcibly* prohibiting everyone and anyone from employing her because IT doesn't LIKE the ideas she expressed is NOT only a violation of HER rights, but is a violation of EVERYONE'S rights (ie a violation of the rights of all those who would hire her based on her nursing abilities, not her ideological convictions).
Put simply, as with religion, the State has NO right to 'allow' or 'forbid' a person from practicing ANY profession on the basis of their philosophy - no matter HOW despicable some may find that philosophy. This is true whether one is anti-semitic or, say, anti-trans.
In other words, the State has NO right to force anyone to "Bake that Cake" (or "Treat that Jew" or "Affirm that Trans"). The individual is NOT the PROPERTY of the State, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires.
That an individual may be a bigot does NOT change this FACT.
Tldr
Islamic deflectionism
"Tldr Islamic deflectionism"
One thanks Alan for identifying the fact he doesn't let his SELF-CONFESSED *ignorance* about what someone has said (Alan EXPLICITLY declared he did NOT even read what I wrote) prevent him from coming to conclusions about what he did NOT read.
In other words, one thanks Alan for EXPLICITLY admitting the FACT that - exactly like this antisemitic nurse - reason is NOT his epistemological standard. That FACT certainly explains why - just like the Gazans - Alan blindly *attacks* the individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort.
Talk about birds of a feather!
That says all one need say about Alan's self-professed EMPTY accusation here - not to mention his PROJECTION about 'deflection'.
Secret Hamas docs reveal torture, execution of gay terrorists — while some male Oct. 7 Israeli victims were raped in captivity
By Caitlin Doornbos
Published Feb. 4, 2025, 4:56 p.m. ET
882
Hamas tortured and executed terrorists within its ranks who allegedly had gay sex, shocking documents show — as sources added some male Israeli victims of the Oct. 7 massacre were raped in captivity.
The Iranian proxy terror group had a running list of recruits who were found to have failed Hamas’ “morality checks” by having same-sex relations — and they paid a heavy price, according to documents recovered by the Israel Defense Forces and shared with The Post.
The documents reveal the “crimes” that were allegedly committed by 94 Hamas recruits — lumping “homosexual conversations,” “flirting with girls without a legal relationship” and “sodomy” in with serious allegations of child rape and torture.
Hamas fighters arriving in a pickup truck at Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza City for the handover of hostage Agam Beger to the Red Cross, dated Jan. 30, 2025.
3
Hamas fighters gather for a hostage handover in Gaza City on Jan. 30.
AP
The allegations, dated between 2012 and 2019, involve recruits to Hamas’ intelligence, military and interior ministry and say the new members were eventually deemed “unacceptable” to continue working with the terror group because of their actions.
“He constantly curses God,” according to one allegation, which added, “Information was received that he sexually harassed a young child.“
SPAMMING more articles which have NOTHING to do with a single word I've written is just ANOTHER example of Alan's sin of DEFLECTION which he fraudulently tried to PROJECT onto others.
Apparently Alan has NO rational argument to offer in regard to ANYTHING I've *actually* written here. He can only try - quite unsuccessfully - to steer away from the FACT I previously identified: "the State has NO right to force anyone to "Bake that Cake" (or "Treat that Jew" or "Affirm that Trans"). The individual is NOT the PROPERTY of the State, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires. That an individual may be a bigot does NOT change this FACT."
And no amount of deflection and evasion by Alan will change that FACT either.
Which part of hate not being tolerated in a pluralistic society triggers you?
Hmm Red4Cap,
First off do you mean Allah or some guy named Alan. If you mean Alan who is he & pls provide link to this person's ideology and his views on Islamic Deflection.
Next up...I have done a thorough internet search for the phrase
'Islamic deflectionism'. I. Come. Up. Empty. (which is an English term for nothing.) Bubkas. Gournish. Efes. You can actually find the meaning of these words (noun s./noun pl.)
So, I ask of you, Rad4Cap, teach us, enlighten us, all of us, here, on this thread,
what exactly is,
Islamic deflection?
We are waiting to understand you.
Salom aleikum Brother!
Here are just a springling of some not helpful links I did find;
https://www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/deflection/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
https://www.middleeasteye.net/discover/inshallah-wallah-salam-islamic-expressions-mainstream
And a couple you could read to update whatever it is your try to tell the world
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X10002007\
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1986/wiesel/interview/
This nurse can express her abhorrent views in her own free time but she cannot withhold care from patients based on their ethnicity, religion, or political views. OHSU, the employer, is a public institution in a highly regulated industry, so there must be an investigation before any action is taken. If OHSU finds that Ms. Hart did not break any laws or violate any OHSU policies, they may choose to keep her on staff. I wouldn’t be surprised at such an outcome, but I’d be very concerned — both for the institution and for my own safety as a longtime OHSU patient.
>>"OHSU, the employer, is a public institution in a highly regulated industry"
You misapprehend me. As I've pointed out to others in different threads here, I've not denied this is the current practice - any more than I would have denied slavery was the current practice in the pre-Civil War South. My point, in both cases, is that that the current practice is (as I explicitly stated) "*wrong*". In other words, my point and argument here is the same one the Abolitionists made against the "industry" of slavery: that the State has NO right to treat the individual as *its* PROPERTY, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires. THAT is a VIOLATION of the individual's monopolistic right to his OWN life and his OWN effort.
That the law commits this *grotesque* VIOLATION (be it against blacks or medical professionals) doesn't change that fact.
Put simply, I don't dispute your point that the State does the things you say it does. My entire point is that the State is WRONG to do those things. And you have made NO argument, presented NO facts, here against that point - ie you have left MY argument untouched and undisputed.
You may be correct to say that Ms. Hart cannot be forced to treat certain patients based on their ethnicity or ideology, but that would likely violate OHSU’s policy of non-discrimination.
>>"You may be correct to say that Ms. Hart cannot be forced to treat certain patients...."
That is not my argument, any more than it was the argument of the Abolitionists that blacks could not be forced to pick cotton as slaves. Both this nurse and the black slaves ARE and WERE indeed forced to do such things. This is an indisputable fact.
My argument - like the Abolitionists before me - is that such force by the State is a VIOLATION of the individual's right to his OWN life and his OWN effort. My argument - like the Abolitionists before me - is that such force is the State treating them as it's PROPERTY, to be disposed of as IT sees fit, to satisfy ITS desires.
My argument - like the Abolitionists before me - is that the State treating the individual as its PROPERTY is wrong. One *hopes* you agree with that argument, rather than - like the Southern Slave owner before you - you accept the premise that the individual IS the PROPERTY of the State.
>>"that would likely violate OHSU's policy of non-discrimination
If an employer has a *voluntarily* chosen standard for employment, and if an employee *voluntarily* accepts that condition of employment, then that employer has the contractual right to fire that employee if they "violate" that condition of employment.
I have repeated this point numerous times throughout this entire comment section - including directly to you here ("The hospital indeed properly has the right to refuse to associate with (aka employ) her if they see fit."). Why do you continue to act as if NO such argument has been made here at all, let alone to you specifically?
I will now simply repeat what you continue to IGNORE:
"I don't dispute your point that the State does the things you say it does. My entire point is that the State is WRONG to do those things. And you have made NO argument, presented NO facts, here against that point - ie you have left MY argument untouched and undisputed."
I didn’t address those points because I agreed with you. OHSU’s policies and terms of employment are the dispositive factor. Ms.Hart presumably accepted her job under those terms, so if OHSU determines that she violated her contract they may find it appropriate to dismiss her. She expressed some objectionable opinions but she did not do anything illegal, as far as we know.
I also agree that Ms. Hart’s nursing license is her own property and that it would be wrong to revoke it unless she is found to have violated the professional code of ethics or other terms of her licensure. For example, she might be forced to surrender her license if she were proven to have proactively caused or hastened a patient’s death, as opposed to merely threatening or fantasizing about it on social media, outside of her working hours.
May she never get sick and may she never be treated by a Jewish doctor. May her death be her reward.
Okay….that's not really helpful. Hate doesn't end hate.
Not only Jewish, but Israeli doctors treat even Palestinian prisoners. Jews have ethics despite how we are portrayed by our haters, who tend to be projecting their own debasement onto us.
Dr. Yuval Bitton helped save Sinwar’s life in 2004 and when Sinwar was released in 2011 he acknowledged this and told Dr. Bitton he would repay the debt one day.
On October 7, Dr. Bitton’s nephew Tamir Adar was wounded while battling terrorists at Kibbutz Nir Oz and abducted to Gaza where he died hours later.
Israeli doctors cured Sinwar’s brain cancer while he was in prison for slaughtering Arabs in Gaza!
Terrible. I'd be amazed if she actually found an attorney to defend her, unless he was keen just to take her money, knowing in advance her chances of losing were 99%.
But the bitch isn't anti-semitic, right?
No! She's for HUMANITY!
Fake nurse. Real nurses put all of their feelings aside, as well as their ideologies and biases when they are taking care of patients.
Not surprised. With the polarization that has occurred in the US, Portland, OR has become a Mecca for intolerant illiberals. And because of the general groupthink in the Portland culture they are not challenged when they veer into hate, anti-Semitism or violence.
She must be fired. Substitute "blacks" for "Jews" in anything she's said and ask yourself what would happen.
The Free Press community would call it "Free Speech" and complain that ANY criticism is "cancel culture."
Charles - I'm making a Public Service Announcement here regarding a respondent to your post:
"T-1000" is SPAMMING other commenters here with the same "whataboutism" LlE he wrote to you. And he is spamming that "whataboutism" LlE in the DISHONEST attempt to deflect away from the *valid* point you and others have made here.
Put simply, T is trying to SMEAR everyone here as a racist. And he is doing so by simply making up the claim (ie LYlNG) that "the ENTIRE Free Press community" “here” (as he puts it) would DISAGREE with the idea "that "shunning" a doctor who refused to treat people based on race, gender, etc. would be ok" because "[such shunning] would be "cancel culture"."
Of course, T got *flustered* when I pointed out the fact that NO one here even OBJECTED to (let alone DISAGREED with) that idea when I EXPLICITLY declared (multiple times, to multiple people here) it is an "*absolute* RIGHT" to "shun into oblivion" anyone who refuses to treat any and all trans OR blacks for ALL afflictions (including, for example, car crashes, being shot by a criminal, etc etc ad nauseam) simply *because* they are trans or black.
Put simply, NO one - not ONE SINGLE person here - DISAGREED with the idea of shunning such doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc.
Talk about *definitive* proof AGAINST T's FRAUDULENT claim that EVERYONE here *would* DISAGREE about shunning such doctors, etc.
However, as I indicated, T got flustered (more like addle brained) when his LlE was unmasked. So NOW he's going around and *confessing* the fact that MY point is true: that 'NO one here DISAGREED with the idea of shunning such a doctor'. In other words, T himself has PROVEN his accusation that 'EVERYONE would DISAGREE with the idea of shunning such a doctor' to be a *blatant* FALSEHOOD.
LOL!
What is truly bizarre, though, is that - instead of simply *admitting* the fact HE has now PROVEN his OWN accusation to be a LlE - T has taken to trying to PRETEND that:
"NO ONE - not ONE SINGLE person - disagreeing with the idea of shunning"
equals:
"the ENTIRE...community" here DISAGREES with the idea of shunning.
Unbelievable as it may sound, T is now literally going around and repeatedly declaring that *if* NO ONE can be found who DISAGREES with the idea of shunning, that means EVERYONE DISAGREES with the idea of shunning.
Or, put more simply, T is declaring "NO ONE" = 'EVERYONE".
THAT is T's 'argument' here.
Talk about the very *definition* of irrational INSANITY!
Since I have never been to this site before, it was at this point I recognized the fact that T is NOT here to logically and honestly identify the facts of reality about anything. Instead, he is apparently the resident Leftist GRIEFER who will say ANY insane thing in order to try to ABUSE other human beings.
That is the purpose of my PSA here: to help people avoid making my mistake of presuming T is an honest and rational human being rather than a nihilistic animal who gets its SICK kicks from ABUSING others. It is my hope people will simply BLOCK the creature - as I have now done - depriving it of victims so that it can't get its jollies from GRIEFING here anymore.
And she hasn't been fired and dragged out the door?? Her nursing days should be over!!
Ho-hum, it’s in Oregon where the fabled gate of hell is located.
Oh my goodness! She is a nasty piece of work. She deserves a one-way ticket to the Middle East country of her choice.
Not surprised. With the polarization that has occurred in the US, Portland, OR has become a Mecca for intolerant illiberals. And because of the general groupthink in the Portland culture they are not challenged when they veer into hate, anti-Semitism or violence.
A Mecca…ironic 🤔
Agreed about Portland.
PS: it appears you accidentally double-posted this comment to the thread here.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if she found out she had Jewish genetics. 😂😂
“For Yahweh’s portion is his people. Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. For the LORD’S portion and chosen share is His people; Jacob (Israel) is the allotment of His inheritance.”
Deuteronomy 32:9