It was 3: 45 in the morning when the vote was finally taken. After six months of arguing and final 16 hours of hot parliamentary debates, Australia's Northern Territory became the first legal authority in the world to allow doctors to take the lives of incurably ill patients who wish to die. The measure passed by the convincing vote of 15 to 10. Almost immediately word flashed on the Internet and was picked up, half a world away, by John Hofsess, executive director of the Right to Die Society of Canada. He sent it on via the group's on-line service, Death NET. Says Hofsess: We posted bulletins all day long, because of course this isn't just something that happened in Australia. It's world history. 

The full import may take a while to sink in. The NT Rights of the Terminally Ill law has left physicians and citizens alike trying to deal with its moral and practical implications. Some have breathed sighs of relief, others, including churches, right-to-life groups and the Australian Medical Association, bitterly attacked the bill and the haste of its passage. But the tide is unlikely to turn back. In Australia-where an aging population, life-extending technology and changing community attitudes have all played their part-other states are going to consider making a similar law to deal with euthanasia . In the US and Canada, where the right-to-die movement is gathering strength, observers are waiting for the dominoes to start falling. 

Under the new Northern Territory law, an adult patient can request death-probably by a deadly injection or pill-to put an end to suffering. The patient must be diagnosed as terminally ill by two doctors. After a cooling off period of seven days, the patient can sign a certificate of request. After 48 hours the wish for death can be met. For Lloyd Nickson, a 54-year-old Darwin resident suffering from lung cancer, the NT Rights of Terminally Ill law means he can get on with living without the haunting fear of his suffering: a terrifying death from his breathing condition. I'm not afraid of dying from a spiritual point of view, but what I was afraid of was how I'd go, because I've watched people die in the hospital fighting for oxygen and clawing at their masks, he says. What are the answers to this following set of questions: 1. What became law in Australia?
2. Is there a waiting period?
3. What is the name of the man with the uncurable disease?
4. Is he afraid to pass on?
5. What is he afraid of?
6. What time of day was the legislation approved?
7. By what margin?
8. What online organization wrote about the story?
9. What nation is that organization from?
10. Who was the organizational leader that wrote about the legislation?
Answer: 1. Drs can legally take the lives of incurable patients who wish to die.
2. A cooling off period of seven days, then sign a request, after 48 hours death can be met.
3. Lloyd Nickson
4. No
5. Dying in the hospital fighting for oxygen and clawing at his mask.
6. 3: 45 in the morning
7. 15 to 10
8. Death NET
9. Canada
10. John Hofsess

Problem: In epistemology, rationalism is the view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge" or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification". More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive". 

In an old controversy, rationalism was opposed to empiricism, where the rationalists believed that reality has an intrinsically logical structure. Because of this, the rationalists argued that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists asserted that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction. The rationalists had such a high confidence in reason that empirical proof and physical evidence were regarded as unnecessary to ascertain certain truths – in other words, "there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience". 

Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position "that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge" to the more extreme position that reason is "the unique path to knowledge". Given a pre-modern understanding of reason, rationalism is identical to philosophy, the Socratic life of inquiry, or the zetetic (skeptical) clear interpretation of authority (open to the underlying or essential cause of things as they appear to our sense of certainty). In recent decades, Leo Strauss sought to revive "Classical Political Rationalism" as a discipline that understands the task of reasoning, not as foundational, but as maieutic.
1. What did Leo Strauss want to revive?
2. How is rationalism seen in epistemology?
3. how is it formally defined?
4. Has rationalism ever been controversial?
5. What was it opposed to?
6. Is it illogical or logical?
7. What is the argument  for rationalism?
8. Was math apart of the argument?
9. Did ethics come into play?
10. What was the last thing involved?
11. Were they confident in this or not sure?
12. What type of proof did the have?
13. What type of evidence did they not need?
14. What were there words on that?
15. Were there one or many standpoint to this?
16. What was the moderate one?
17. What was more extreme?
18. What is rationalism the same as?
19. What does zetetic mean?
20. Is it considered a discipline?
Answer: 1. Classical Political Rationalism
2. regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge
3. a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive"
4. YES
5. empiricism
6. logical
7. that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths
8. yes
9. yes
10. metaphysics
11. confident
12. empirical proof
13. physical
14. there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience
15. many
16. that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge
17. the unique path to knowledge
18. philosophy
19. skeptical
20. yes

question: One day Kyle's Dad had to go for a long ride. He went on this ride because he wanted to get breakfast. With breakfast the dad always loved to get a banana in a drink. This was his favorite drink. But along the ride, Kyle's dad had a scare. The back door was open but someone else shut it and tossed his book. Later he found his book in a white bin. Along with the book, there was a white costume. He thought that maybe this was a sign. So he took the white costume and found out it was a doctor costume. He remembered that his son Kyle's favorite thing to do was play doctor. This made him remember that he never even asked his son Kyle if he wanted to come for the ride. So the dad turned around and drove all the way home to get his son. He asked Kyle if he wanted to come out to breakfast. Kyle got very excited and said he did. Kyle's dad was happy he came back because it helped him make his son happy.
1. Who went out for a ride?
2. was it a short one?
3. what did he go out for?
4. what beverage did he want?
5. what happened along the route?
6. What did he see that reminded him of his son?
7. what could it be used to dress up as?
8. had he checked to see if Kyle wanted to join?
9. so what did he do?
10. did Kyle want to join him
11. how did the father feel?
12. was the son as well?
13. what else was in the bin besides the costume?
****
answer:
1. Kyle's Dad
2. no
3. to get breakfast.
4. a banana in a drink
5. he had a scare
6. a white costume
7. a doctor
8. no
9. he drove home to get him
10. yes
11. happy
12. yes
13. a book