|
Nintendo Kid posted:Now you're just being actusrhesus. The whole idea is once the morons knuckle under and accept vaccination they can go free. But why didn't they do that for Shithands Mary? Why did they only quarantine a single actively-infected person, rather than all the people who hadn't gotten the vaccine? GreyPowerVan posted:Are you more aware of the law? Even when I disagree with actus, I'm mostly just disagreeing that the laws should work that way, more than the fact that they do. As a general rule of thumb, fishmech is not aware of anything
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:04 |
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:Are you more aware of the law? Even when I disagree with actus, I'm mostly just disagreeing that the laws should work that way, more than the fact that they do. He specifically tried to claim you can't prove criminal intent just from parental ignorance, despite that parents have been convicted in the past for various forms of neglect they at least claimed to not know or understand was neglect, as one example. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/05/nyregion/couple-guilty-of-assault-in-vegan-case.html Main Paineframe posted:But why didn't they do that for Shithands Mary? Why did they only quarantine a single actively-infected person, rather than all the people who hadn't gotten the vaccine? Because she had the disease. Thanks for reinforcing my point: that Typhoid Mary was punished for having the disease and spreading it. 
Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:He sure doesn't seem aware of actual law for one. bahahahahahahahahahahahaha... you're cute.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:bahahahahahahahahahahahaha... And you're clearly stupid, according to yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:He specifically tried to claim you can't prove criminal intent just from parental ignorance, despite that parents have been convicted in the past for various forms of neglect they at least claimed to not know or understand was neglect, as one example. I read that article, and the prosecutor comes right out and says that the charges were brought not because the diet was inherently neglectful, but because the parents failed to seek medical care as the child's condition worsened. "He said that no matter what the parents' intentions, their failure to seek any type of medical care as IIce's condition worsened merited the criminal charges. " The kid's condition was described as: "By the time the authorities intervened when the child was 15 months old, she was toothless, had rickets, broken bones and internal injuries. She was severely malnourished and weighed 10 pounds -- less than half the normal weight for a young toddler." Not treating a sick kid has pretty well established precedent for bringing charges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
tehllama posted:I read that article, and the prosecutor comes right out and says that the charges were brought not because the diet was inherently neglectful, but because the parents failed to seek medical care as the child's condition worsened. Refusing to get vaccinations is refusing to seek medical care. Simple.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:10
|
|
tehllama posted:I read that article, and the prosecutor comes right out and says that the charges were brought not because the diet was inherently neglectful, but because the parents failed to seek medical care as the child's condition worsened. The relevant English legal concept would be that any reasonable person ought to have believed that such a person was in danger of harm. In that respect fishmech is right that ignorance isn't necessarily a defence at law, but I'm pretty sure ActusRhesus knows what the gently caress is up. quote:Refusing to get vaccinations is refusing to seek medical care. Simple. Actually, those things aren't treated at all similarly with respect to legal ideas of causality.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Right. nintendo kid's problem is that he keeps trying to equate how courts handle a. deliberately abusing your kid by starving them, beating them, whatever b. negligently doing or not doing something to your kid that will result in certain death c. failing to seek medical attention after something you did or didn't do results in medical harm d. not doing something that might, possibly, result in harm at a later time. there's also a lot of conflating of civil and criminal liabilities, and punitive measures and regulatory measures. Basically everything he types now is the mental equivalent of the "random chains" corner of my jewelry box...sure I could take the time to untangle that mess...it's possible...but I don't even know where to start.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Right. nintendo kid's problem is that he keeps trying to equate how courts handle Start with not being stupid (your words there). Refusing to vaccinate children leads to certain death past a certain point, therefore all that can be done to prevent the spread of this behavior should be done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The relevant English legal concept would be that any reasonable person ought to have believed that such a person was in danger of harm. In that respect fishmech is right that ignorance isn't necessarily a defence at law, but I'm pretty sure ActusRhesus knows what the gently caress is up. right...he's taking buzzwords and catch phrases and applying them to situations in which they are not applicable. Ignorance of the law is not a defense...but ignorance of fact may negate a person's mens rea in a specific intent crime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:right...he's taking buzzwords and catch phrases and applying them to situations in which they are not applicable. It sure didn't in that case or many others!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Start with not being stupid (your words there). except no...it doesn't because, as has been pointed out repeatedly, thanks to all the people that do not believe the Jenny McCarthys of the world, the risk of contracting a vaccine preventable disease is still very low...as opposed to not feeding your kids. All mammals who do not eat will die. Not all mammals who are not vaccinated will get sick. (Again, Irony alert...because of the success of vaccines)
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It sure didn't in that case or many others! negligence is not a specific intent crime. the big analysis there is "reasonably foreseeable risk of substantial harm" in a criminal context or "duty, breach, causation, damages" in civil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:except no...it doesn't because, as has been pointed out repeatedly, thanks to all the people that do not believe the Jenny McCarthys of the world, the risk of contracting a vaccine preventable disease is still very low...as opposed to not feeding your kids. Yes this is because incidence of non-vaccination has remained low in most places. Places it hasn't, you've had sudden outbreaks that kill and maim many people. ActusRhesus posted:negligence is not a specific intent crime. the big analysis there is "reasonably foreseeable risk of substantial harm" in a criminal context or "duty, breach, causation, damages" in civil. So you agree there's nothing preventing a law that specifically criminalizes avoiding vaccines, good. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:18
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:negligence is not a specific intent crime. the big analysis there is "reasonably foreseeable risk of substantial harm" in a criminal context or "duty, breach, causation, damages" in civil. The classic example being: you can't murder someone by accident. And you have an accident on purpose. There is a reason why there is a separate criminal offence of manslaughter in more or less every jurisdiction - exactly this one.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So you agree there's nothing preventing a law that specifically criminalizes avoiding vaccines, good. That's not what I said at all. Now you are being deliberately obtuse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The classic example being: you can't murder someone by accident. And you have an accident on purpose. and in a lot of jurisdictions, absent aggravating factor like DUI or use of a firearm, negligent homicide is a misdemeanor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:23
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:and in a lot of jurisdictions, absent aggravating factor like DUI or use of a firearm, negligent homicide is a misdemeanor. In the UK, you would have to either kill someone by committing another illegal act, or be grossly negligent. It's almost as if the law has a framework for dealing with different types of intentionality and causation.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:That's not what I said at all. Now you are being deliberately obtuse. Is this obtuse as being more defined by a layman or more of a legalese definition of obtuse?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:That's not what I said at all. Now you are being deliberately obtuse. You're the one being obtuse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I know you are but what am I? *fart* MOM! ACTUS RHESUS IS PICKING ON ME AGAIN! Nintendo Kid's mom posted:*wipes hands on apron and calls down to basement* It's OK, Billy. Come upstairs and have a hot pocket. And wash your hands first!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
haha holy poo poo, what the gently caress is this
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
You have now admitted you have no argument. Great job! Leo Showers posted:haha holy poo poo, what the gently caress is this Well you can't call it a meltdown because of the 15th amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
let me internet school you with my volumes of legal knowledge (resorts to *fart or whatever to win an internet argument)
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I reject your reality and substitute my own. Leo Showers posted:let me internet school you with my volumes of legal knowledge (resorts to *fart or whatever to win an internet argument) An argument implies there is more than one side. Legally "punishment" is a criminal law concept. Legally negligence requires a reasonably foreseeable substantial risk. Legally omissions and actions are treated differently. This is not Actus Rhesus's view of the law...it's pretty basic concepts. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Yes keep putting your own attitude into my mouth.  It's nice to see you admitting that you were wrong about punishment, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
By all accounts ActusRhesus, with the notable exception of the beep-boop no humanity lawyer gimmick, had the argument in the bag but still felt inclined to drop that steaming hot load of *fart* and then it was game over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Man, on the one hand we have the literal mouth of the law which I disagree with and on the other we have fishmech well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Seriously, kid, what the gently caress is wrong with you? I'm not even trying to pick a fight here...I'm trying to clarify how the law works for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Seriously, kid, what the gently caress is wrong with you? We know but you still went full
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Seriously, kid, what the gently caress is wrong with you? Your uh fart post with his mom or something was a little unnecessary also you're calling him a kid now, you may consider putting him on your ignore list instead. You would save everyone a lot of headaches because I'm not sure where this thread is headed right now. At least we can all agree vaccinations are good. SSJ_naruto_2003 fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Seriously, kid, what the gently caress is wrong with you? No you're melting down and shouting about farts because you can't bring yourself to admit you don't understand the thread. You're also still wrong about punishment only existing as a result of convictions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:No you're melting down and shouting about farts because you can't bring yourself to admit you don't understand the thread. You're also still wrong about punishment only existing as a result of convictions. If by melting down you mean eating melted brie en croute and shaking my head at you, sure. So, what exactly don't I understand. Enlighten me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:If by melting down you mean eating melted brie en croute and shaking my head at you, sure. You don't understand anything, buddy. For example, you think bragging about melted cheese is a good way to win an argument over vaccines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:If by melting down you mean eating melted brie en croute and shaking my head at you, sure. please dont go down this path, please
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You don't understand anything, buddy. For example, you think bragging about melted cheese is a good way to win an argument over vaccines. your first mistake is assuming I am trying to "win" anything. Again, this is not an argument. it's not a debate. and again, please, tell me what, exactly, I don't understand. Also, melted cheese is delicious. who wouldn't want that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:your first mistake is assuming I am trying to "win" anything. Again, this is not an argument. it's not a debate. You're not debating though, you're trying to brag about some supermarket cheese because you're incapable of proving that punishments don't exist outside of convictions. What are you even on? What, exactly, you don't understand is everything you've claimed to talk about today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:You're not debating though, you're trying to brag about some supermarket cheese because you're incapable of proving that punishments don't exist outside of convictions. What are you even on? twodot fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Jan 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:ActusRehsus would be correct in not debating your legal opinions, since they are just obviously trivially wrong. You don't debate people who say 2+2=5. true...but the former professor in me really wants to help people understand. one more crack and then back to cheese. because cheese is delicious. Here we go...try to follow. Under US law, "punishments" "penalties" and "restrictions" are not the same thing. Punishments are a criminal concept. They are what we do to "bad people" after they've gotten a trial. Penalties are usually a civil concept. They are sanctions we impose for non-criminal conduct. (not to be confused with fines, which are often punishments) Restrictions are a regulatory concept. the state's power to impose any of the above come from different authoritative sources, and the rights and protections afforded to people facing them will also be different. So, the questions 1. Can I put someone in jail for not vaccinating? 2. Can I sue someone if their unvaccinated kid gets me sick? 3. Can the state kick unvaccinated kids out of public school? 4. Can the state quarantine kids with measels? Are all analyzed differently. This is not some crazy out there theory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:04 |
|
|
twodot posted:ActusRhesus would be correct in not debating your legal opinions, since they are just obviously trivially wrong. You don't debate people who say 2+2=5. That's not my legal opinion, friend. ActusRhesus posted:true...but the former professor in me really wants to help people understand. one more crack and then back to cheese. because cheese is delicious. This is all utterly irrelevant to the fact that things can be punishments without being the result of convictions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2015 03:02
|
|