(February 6, 2017 at 7:01 pm)chimp3 Wrote:(February 6, 2017 at 12:59 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: And yet, I have made no arguments towards anything other, than the definition of clinical death. You say that the conflation seems deliberate on my part, and that I am trying to show something other than what I have said. This always seems to be a big problem here, and I think is an impediment to any logical or systematic discussion. The steps and individual arguments aren't considered as much as assumptions against the overall view.
But for your information, I am quite skeptical of NDE accounts as a whole, but I think there are better arguments, than trying to change the definitions of words and phrases to suit one's view.
As to conflating terms or trying to pull any type of bait in switch I don't think that seeing how you described it as near death and given what the acronym NDE stands for, that they are being very sly here.
Are they declared to not have cardiac or respiratory activity..... no pupil response? Again, I would ask, what your definition of "clinically dead" is?
I know what the dictiolnary definition of clinical death is. In 25 years working in the clinical setting I have never seen the term used. That is my point.
Ok.... that seems scaled back a bit from the previous discussion. However I still don't think that it is a very good arguement, particularly because, it could be limited to your experience and locale. Where I have heard that term used, (not pertaining t NDE's) is when the person was clinically dead for an extraordinary amount of time, and then revived. But overall I haven't noticed anyone grossly mis-using he term, which would justify insults, and telling them to get an education.
