John Travolta's 16-year old son dies

[Drudgewire]

No your position has been that it is not reasonable to think that Scientology ever does anything wrong, regardless of past crimes committed. You ignore the history and can only rate things for specifics of that case.

Ummm... desertgal said anything like that where?

Again, speculation is not wrong and is in fact what we should be doing. Thinking we know the whole story less than 24 in one way or the other and getting mad about anyone who disagrees with us, regardless of where we stand, is where we throw our skeptic badges out the window in favor of pre-concieved beliefs.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You read the comment exactly as it was meant. The logic leap, mental illness = seizures, shows it. There are many many reasons people have seizures. Three of my four daughters have suffered such episodes in their life, none related to any mental illness.

The issue here is a seizure disorder and not having febrile seizures at some time. If he was having seizures at all regularly it is most likely a neurological condition and likely something that would hit the most of their anti medical views.

The fact that the linkage has been made as a critism of scientology shows the preconcieved nature of the arguement. Because a late episode of Kawasakis disease doesnt fit the need to attribute blame, therefore it is being ignore in all this speculation

Or fit with symptoms and the like.

 

[MG1962]

Scientology treats them the same, as far as I know.

By all means, if you can show that they treat neurological disorders with proper medical treatment, then go right ahead.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to be a "bigot" and assume that scientology's "special" doctors would be used to treat Neurological Disorders as much as mental illness.

There you go again, attempting to link seizures to specific causalities. Kawaskis disease is not neurological, and the seizures it cause are as a result of body overheating.

It was the same with Heath Ledgers death. The media was littered with stories of drug abuse, people claiming to have taken just about every prohibitive drug on the books either with the guy or supplied by the guy.

In the end he died from a stupid mistake involving prescription drugs and not as a result of an abusive lifestyle.

 

[desertgal]

No your position has been that it is not reasonable to think that Scientology ever does anything wrong, regardless of past crimes committed.

Oh, that is a complete crock. That isn't what I said at all. Scientology does things wrong all over the place. Its very existence is wrong.

My position is that you are presenting speculation as factual evidence. Period.

You ignore the history and can only rate things for specifics of that case.

Another crock. I'll be more than willing to evaluate the history of the Travolta's treatment of their son - just show me some facts. As I said before, if they mistreated their son through their religion, then they deserve to be censured (or more). I've yet to see any proof either way.

If you are for ignoring history you can't say that there is any reason to speculate. You have been clear up till now, there is no reason to suspect anything here, and anyone who does so based on the past is clearly being horribly biased and unreasonable.

You aren't suspecting anything based on the past behavior of Travolta and Preston. You are applying a hypothesis to their past behavior that may be true, or may not be true.

You have no facts. You have no evidence. You only speculate. In critical thinking, speculation and hypothesis will only get you so far. At some point, you have to interject proven facts.

Clearly it is horribly wrong to investigate deaths of christian scientist children as well.

More crock.

 

[MG1962]

The issue here is a seizure disorder and not having febrile seizures at some time. If he was having seizures at all regularly it is most likely a neurological condition and likely something that would hit the most of their anti medical views.


Or fit with symptoms and the like.

And the most important word in this post is IF We simply dont know, and until we do, one way or the other. It is still idle speculation

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ummm... desertgal said anything like that where?

With the refusal to accept that history is evidence. She is defining evidence with out any idea of quality of evidence. The beliefs of the church and its past crimes are evidence, but in this case not high quality evidence.

So rejecting that as evidence you are rejecting the idea of things like preliminary studies are evidence. It is evidence, but not conclusive evidence, a distinction she is refusing to understand or accept.

 

[Lonewulf]

Hey, if scientology has no influence at all on this case, fine. As it is, with Scientology's long history, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I find it hard to believe, though.

 

[zooterkin]

I'm a little confused, so perhaps someone who's been keeping up with Travolta's family can fill me in.

Had Jett had any seizures before this one, since being a small child with Kawasaki syndrome? The wiki article doesn't list seizures as a symptom of that disease. If he had been diagnosed as liable to having seizures, and was not on medication that would be one thing, but if this was the first (and I know from recent experience that epilepsy may first show in teenagers, without warning) then there would have been nothing the parents could have done. It's entirely too early to be alleging that scientology was to blame in this case.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There you go again, attempting to link seizures to specific causalities. Kawaskis disease is not neurological, and the seizures it cause are as a result of body overheating.

But he was old for febrile seizures. Fevers can cause seizures in small children sure, but again it does not fit well with a seizure in someone his age.

In the end he died from a stupid mistake involving prescription drugs and not as a result of an abusive lifestyle.

Why did he actually need the pharmacopoeia that he was taking though?

 

[Drudgewire]

With the refusal to accept that history is evidence. She is defining evidence with out any idea of quality of evidence. The beliefs of the church and its past crimes are evidence, but in this case not high quality evidence.

So rejecting that as evidence you are rejecting the idea of things like preliminary studies are evidence. It is evidence, but not conclusive evidence, a distinction she is refusing to understand or accept.

What she said is it shouldn't be the ONLY evidence. And she's right. However, it SHOULD be considered an element of the story, and in my own personal view a pretty ing big one.

Where it stops being a debate and more of a pissing contest is making up her saying the "scientology never does anything wrong" part.

A child's death is always going to cause gutteral reactions from all sides, but God/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Darwin help us all when I of all people have to be the voice of reason on ANY issue, so let's see if we can use our critical minds on our own so I can go back to being the guy who makes inappropriate jokes instead kthnxbye.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oh, that is a complete crock. That isn't what I said at all. Scientology does things wrong all over the place. Its very existence is wrong.

But you have to always ignore their past, as it is not evidence.

My position is that you are presenting speculation as factual evidence. Period.

No I am presenting preliminary evidence as preliminary evidence. I have cited many facts, but you toss them out because you don't accept that historic actions are evidence regarding current actions.

Another crock. I'll be more than willing to evaluate the history of the Travolta's treatment of their son - just show me some facts. As I said before, if they mistreated their son through their religion, then they deserve to be censured (or more). I've yet to see any proof either way.

And you reject anything that would explain why such thoughts might have a basis in what we know scientology does.

You have no facts. You have no evidence. You only speculate. In critical thinking, speculation and hypothesis will only get you so far. At some point, you have to interject proven facts.



More crock.

These are opposing. Why are you for investigateing them when you would have not facts or evidence? That would be just as wrong as what you are decrying here.

 

[desertgal]

With the refusal to accept that history is evidence. She is defining evidence with out any idea of quality of evidence. The beliefs of the church and its past crimes are evidence, but in this case not high quality evidence.

All right, I'll concede the point that the history of Scientology indicates that parents who belong to the church have allowed their children's medical issues to go neglected or mistreated, and that there have been fatalities as a result.

I will not concede that that is proof that Travolta and Preston did the same without some evidence - factual evidence, relating specifically to their treatment of their son. They may have. There is no conclusive evidence that they did.

I won't concede that Jett Travolta died of untreated or mistreated epilepsy until there is proof that he DID have epilepsy. He may have. But, there is no conclusive evidence that he did.

I won't concede that Travolta and Preston refused to confront the child's autism and/or allowed it to go untreated or mistreated until there is proof. They may have. There is no conclusive evidence that they did. I have no clue what they did privately. The few glimpses of footage I have seen indicate that he did have autism, but he also seemed to be able to control himself well in public view. There was no stimming, or volatile behavior in those few glimpses. So, there may very well have been some treatment or behavioral therapies that were being used. (And I am the mother of a low functioning autistic, and I work with autistic students, so I do have some experience in that area. I'm not just talking out of my ass.)

So rejecting that as evidence you are rejecting the idea of things like preliminary studies are evidence. It is evidence, but not conclusive evidence, a distinction she is refusing to understand or accept.

Wrong again. I just refuse to accuse Preston and Travolta of killing their child until I see conclusive evidence. Or, at the very least, some evidence that relates directly to them instead of Scientology in general. They may have. There is no conclusive evidence that they did.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What she said is it shouldn't be the ONLY evidence.

No she is saying it isn't evidence at all. It is not conclusive evidence, but it is relevent evidence. She is trying to redefine evidence.

 

[Lonewulf]

All right, I'll concede the point that the history of Scientology indicates that parents who belong to the church have allowed their children's medical issues to go neglected or mistreated, and that there have been fatalities as a result.

I will not concede that that is proof that Travolta and Preston did the same without some evidence - factual evidence, relating specifically to their treatment of their son.

"evidence" != "Proof". Besides, "proof" is for mathematics.

That seems to be where you're stumbling in all of this.

 

[Drudgewire]

No she is saying it isn't evidence at all. It is not conclusive evidence, but it is relevent evidence. She is trying to redefine evidence.

I already called her out for that and she clarified her comments.

I don't know exactly why this is the thread where I'd actually like to see legitimate debate instead of the name calling which is so much more fun but until I figure that out I can't help wanting to keep this from deteriorating to that level. v

v

 

[MG1962]

Hey, if scientology has no influence at all on this case, fine. As it is, with Scientology's long history, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I find it hard to believe, though.

And ultimately you might turn out to be 100% correct, and Scientology will deserve every piece of vitriol that will come from it. All I ask is people be balanced in their thoughts till we hear more

 

[ponderingturtle]

All right, I'll concede the point that the history of Scientology indicates that parents who belong to the church have allowed their children's medical issues to go neglected or mistreated, and that there have been fatalities as a result.

So you are now condemning organizations with out evidence because history is not evidence. Either that or you are being inconsistent.

I won't concede that Jett Travolta died of untreated or mistreated epilepsy until there is proof that he DID have epilepsy. He may have. But, there is no conclusive evidence that he did.

See now you are doing it right, you are qualifying evidence, with things such as preliminary and conclusive.

As for specific claims, I have not made any about this case. Just defending that there is evidence that supports those hypothesizes.

 

[PhantomWolf]

So if a man regularly beat his wife so she needed to go to the hospital it should not be presented at the murder trial as it is meaningless.

It depends. If the evidence says she was shot during a mugging on the street, then why would you present it?

You are jumping straight from "dead woman who husband abused" to "he must have killed her" without looking at any of the evidence in between.

 

[Drudgewire]

I don't know exactly why this is the thread where I'd actually like to see legitimate debate instead of the name calling which is so much more fun but until I figure that out I can't help wanting to keep this from deteriorating to that level. v

v

Actually I DO know. It's because I hate scientology as much as anyone on the board (if not moreso, I'm a Something Awful goon and THEY WENT AFTER LOWTAX DAMNIT!!). But this place promotes critical thinking and a brand new topic is the perfect opportunity for all of us to practice what we preach rather than repeating the same tired mantras we do when we've discussed an issue for the hundredth time and it's really just going through the motions at that point.

Well, and because losing a child is about the only topic even I'm not enough of a scumbag to toss jokes around in so I've got to do something to keep myself occupied.

 

[desertgal]

"evidence" != "Proof". Besides, "proof" is for mathematics.

That seems to be where you're stumbling in all of this.

Fair enough. But, proof is decided by evidence.

At best, the "evidence" you all are describing is circumstantial. Is it relevant to the Travolta case? I don't know. That's the whole point. We don't know enough about the case to determine either way.

Right now, one report says the kid was found unconscious in the bathroom, and another report says the kid had a seizure and fell and hit his head on bathtub. Well, if he was found unconscious, then no one was there to say that a seizure made him fall. He could have just slipped on the wet porcelain or tile. Scientology wouldn't play a part, if that is the case. If he had a seizure and fell, then Scientology might have.

Is out of line to say wait for more facts? No.