|
Solkanar512 posted:You keep talking about "death doesn't automatically render a contract unenforceable" (the rest I never brought up) but the person you were responding to wasn't presuming that death renders contracts unenforceable nor were they talking about death but rather the conditions surrounding death - specifically asking if there was gross negligence. We see this all the time with all sorts of activities that require the signing of waivers which then become absolutely useless when it comes out that someone hosed up in a terrible way and it lead to a major injury or death. This is a common lovely discussion tactic, not just for lawyers. If you can't make a real argument you look for technicalities you can use to try to make the opposing argument look bad. It's a pretty lovely move to pull in casual discussion on an online forum.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:http://opinions.1dca.org/written/opinions2013/10-11-2013/12-4377.pdf They affirmed the trial court's decision compelling mediation/arbitration and found nothing improper about in Florida/federal law. I'm not sure what this part means: quote:And it logically follows that she must comply (despite her religious objections) to that agreement or, as in Kasmer, resign and have a replacement appointed as personal representative. It sounds like someone other than his mom could pick this up? At any rate, has she said anything about a civil suit? That might be more successful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:http://opinions.1dca.org/written/opinions2013/10-11-2013/12-4377.pdf Wow, so it looks like the OP article is a bunch of bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:They affirmed the trial court's decision compelling mediation/arbitration and found nothing improper about in Florida/federal law. Isn't this a civil suit? I don't think you can compel arbitration for actual crimes can you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Wow, so it looks like the OP article is a bunch of bullshit. Yeah I got hints of that from the quoted NYT article but goddamn the actual case at hand is totally different than PLUCKY YOUNG BOY FORCED INTO GAY CONVERSION THERAPY BY THEOCRATIC JUDGE COMMITS SUICIDE
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Isn't this a civil suit? I don't think you can compel arbitration for actual crimes can you? I meant though a civil suit against the program for another cause.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:You keep talking about "death doesn't automatically render a contract unenforceable" (the rest I never brought up) but the person you were responding to wasn't presuming that death renders contracts unenforceable nor were they talking about death but rather the conditions surrounding death - specifically asking if there was gross negligence. We see this all the time with all sorts of activities that require the signing of waivers which then become absolutely useless when it comes out that someone hosed up in a terrible way and it lead to a major injury or death. Negligence doesn't automatically render contracts unenforceable either, unless the negligence violates the contract in some way. My point was that the circumstances of the death do not, by themselves, have any effect on the contract. Sharkie posted:I'm not sure what this part means: No, you misunderstand. What the judge said was that the person filing suit in the name of the dead person (the "personal representative" of the dead person) needs to respect the wishes, desires, and contractual bindings of the dead person. If they cannot comply with those conditions due to personal or religious objections, then they should appoint someone else who can meet those conditions to be the personal representative. The mother claimed that forced arbitration violated her religious sensibilities and therefore she shouldn't be bound by that condition, but since her son willingly agreed to it, it's her duty as representative to abide by it - and if she is unwilling to do so, she needs to hand the "representative" role to someone who is willing to abide by the contract. Also, this is a civil suit. Criminal cases can't be forced into arbitration.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This is a common lovely discussion tactic, not just for lawyers. If you can't make a real argument you look for technicalities you can use to try to make the opposing argument look bad. It's a pretty lovely move to pull in casual discussion on an online forum. I understand (though don't really agree with) complaints about technicalities in the legal system, since the legal system will forcibly prevent you from presenting totally valid evidence in certain scenario, but in discussion you have total control over your arguments. If your argument possesses what you perceive to be a technicality that can be attacked, how this anyone's fault other than the person who constructed the weak argument?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:The whole concept of a technicality doesn't make any sense in discussion to me. You're making some sort of argument or claim, presuming it's properly constructed, that's going to contain some sort of evidence and likely some set of logical deductions stemming from that evidence. I see two scenarios, either your evidence and deductions are relevant to your claim, in which case someone attacking them is a reasonable response, or their not relevant to your claim, in which case why were they written down in the first place? The point is that some people ignore the principle of charity in order to correct someone on semantic minutiae, and attack largely irrelevant minor mistakes while ignoring the actual thrust of the argument. There's nothing wrong with attacking technical details, unless you are just distracting from the issue by intentionally missing the point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Trent posted:The point is that some people ignore the principle of charity in order to correct someone on semantic minutiae, and attack largely irrelevant minor mistakes while ignoring the actual thrust of the argument. 1. Poster was simply mistaken about the age 2. Poster was under the impression that teenager includes 12 year olds 3. Poster was deliberately making a largely irrelevant minor mistake for rhetorical effect I think charity pretty clearly suggests assuming interpretation 1, but even then we should still say "He was not a teenager, he was actually 12", because there's no reason to let people believe wrong things. Further, if I don't care about the actual thrust of the argument, I don't see why I should feel obligated to comment any more than "He was actually 12", just to prevent wrong information from spreading. From there, I don't see a difference between purposefully not engaging the point versus intentionally missing the point. If we want to lay blame on people for distracting from the issue, surely we should blame the people who included A) Information that was wrong and B) For apparently no reason, since that information being wrong doesn't even damage the argument. This is especially a good idea in light of the possibility of interpretation 3. I think charity prevents us from ever assuming any given post is engaging in that strategy, but a policy of turning a blind eye to such statements, in addition to allowing the spread of false information, allows bad faith posters to use lies for rhetorical effect without an opposing voice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
There's also the issue that terms like "negligent" and "reckless" are used colloquially in different ways from their legal meanings, often as a synonym for "wrong." When the issue revolves around a court case, it isn't nit-picking to point out that certain behavior does not meet the legal definitions. What the standard for recklessness is and what it ought to be are different discussions. In this case, as much as I might find binding religious arbitration wrong and distasteful, the question of wheter it is legal and whether the deceased agreed to it were never in dispute. Arguing that something ought to be illegal is different from arguing that the court found incorrectly or that the mother's right to freedom of religion was violated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
What should be illegal is the quackery of gay conversion therapy. You can't sign an arbitration contract to let a doctor bleed you for pneumonia or treat your syphilis with mercury without recourse to the courts when it kills you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What should be illegal is the quackery of gay conversion therapy. Isn't it illegal? I mean most of the places I read about are situated in Mexico or some island in an effort to evade legal action in the United States. I didn't see anywhere that any attempt at gay conversion therapy took place? The kid said they were trying to make him straight but that's not particularly definitive about what was going on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What should be illegal is the quackery of gay conversion therapy. Is there evidence there was any gay conversation therapy? I thought it was just some of the counselors told him being gay was a sin. Which is a bad thing, but it's a completely different kettle of fish from conversation therapy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Isn't it illegal? I mean most of the places I read about are situated in Mexico or some island in an effort to evade legal action in the United States. It's still legal in some states, although there is a Florida lawmaker trying to ban it there Jarmak posted:Is there evidence there was any gay conversation therapy? I thought it was just some of the counselors told him being gay was a sin. I'm not a lawyer or anything and I have no idea what constitutes malpractice for someone claiming to be providing medical services like addiction treatment, but if giving known demonstrably harmful quack psychological counseling to someone in your care for treatment isn't illegal, it should be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's still legal in some states, although there is a Florida lawmaker trying to ban it there Its not a legal argument I'm just asking for clarification, there's a world of difference between counselors making some disparaging comments and no poo poo conversation therapy. The latter usually involves massive amounts of physical and psychological abuse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Telling a gay person that you're treating for psychological and physiological dependence on drugs that they're bad for being gay and they should stop is abuse. If you're treating someone medically you should be held to pretty high standards. I don't think the counselor should, for example, be able to tell patients "God wants you to have sex with me" even though it would be perfectly legal for me to say that to a random person on the street.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Telling a gay person that you're treating for psychological and physiological dependence on drugs that they're bad for being gay and they should stop is abuse. They're not treating them "medically" though, it's not like this is an actual detox center run by doctors or anything. I mean I know it actually is a medical problem and in an ideal world everyone would loving see it as one and stop behaving like it's some kind of moral flaw but you're basically asking the equivalent of bible camp counselors to be held to the standards of medical doctors. I'm not saying they're right in whatever it is they did to this young man, just that I think you're attacking the wrong side of the problem here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
I don't think there should be this weird lawless zone where you get to tell people that you're treating their medical and psychological problems and get their trust and obedience, but you don't have to follow any standards and you get to say "no it's just bible camp lol" when your quack treatments harm them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
The guy in the OP must not have gotten the new messaging that sexuality is fluid and that it is time to get past "born this way".
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't think there should be this weird lawless zone where you get to tell people that you're treating their medical and psychological problems and get their trust and obedience, but you don't have to follow any standards and you get to say "no it's just bible camp lol" when your quack treatments harm them. That's not what happened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't think there should be this weird lawless zone where you get to tell people that you're treating their medical and psychological problems and get their trust and obedience, but you don't have to follow any standards and you get to say "no it's just bible camp lol" when your quack treatments harm them. Certainly not if the state is going to be officially recognizing your program as a legitimate method of rehabilitation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Telling a gay person that you're treating for psychological and physiological dependence on drugs that they're bad for being gay and they should stop is abuse. Okay so do you not understand what actual gay conversion therapy is? Cause when I say "abuse" I don't mean "being an rear end in a top hat", I mean poo poo like intentionally inflicting serious lifelong trauma so that people suffer severe PTSD symptoms when they feel homosexual attraction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:
I do agree that there is nothing wrong with a spectator interjecting a point of information as you suggest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
It is also wrong to attempt to convert cis scum into homosexuals by means of tumblr memes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:The guy in the OP must not have gotten the new messaging that sexuality is fluid and that it is time to get past "born this way". Please dont talk about your sex fluid
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
But did they cure his gay?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
The guy in the OP was a misogynist reactionary who just refused to admit that we are all bisexual. He died because of his insane and outdated reliance on  The truth is that there is literally no basis for the farcical idea of sexual orientation, none whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't think there should be this weird lawless zone where you get to tell people that you're treating their medical and psychological problems and get their trust and obedience, but you don't have to follow any standards and you get to say "no it's just bible camp lol" when your quack treatments harm them. Yeah, me neither, I guess my point is argue that, that the world needs to 1) see it as a medical/psychological problem and 2) see treatments of it as such. ayn rand hand job posted:That's not what happened. I mean it is basically what happens with most addiction treatment programs though. Overwhelmingly often they're 12-step which is based on religion rather than actual medical science.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:The guy in the OP must not have gotten the new messaging that sexuality is fluid and that it is time to get past "born this way". I am sorry our political posturing for equality has harmed you in some way, perhaps we can talk about your feelings on this matter friend.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Okay so do you not understand what actual gay conversion therapy is? Cause when I say "abuse" I don't mean "being an rear end in a top hat", I mean poo poo like intentionally inflicting serious lifelong trauma so that people suffer severe PTSD symptoms when they feel homosexual attraction. No, I understand what it is, but I don't think that just because they didn't give him electroshocks or bury him in ice or any of that twisted stuff, that I think people claiming to be treating someone's psychological and medical conditions should be able to use their position of authority and trust to legally give the patient harmful advice like "don't be gay anymore, god says so". If you want to do that, then run an ordinary bible study and don't advertise yourself as a treatment center. Once you start claiming that you're treating someone then yes I think you should be held to standards of professional conduct and you no longer get to just say whatever you want, like "you need to stop being gay to get better" or "you need to have sex with me to get better" or "you know what's good for that: bleeding yourself a quart of blood a day" or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Are you fucktards even actually talking about the loving case anymore? From what it seems like he was in it voluntarily before the last time he was kicked out. Is that not correct?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
CuckEverlasting posted:Are you fucktards even actually talking about the loving case anymore? That's my understanding. There's still an argument to be had that no one should be able to offer a harmful treatment, even if it's something the patient genuinely thinks they want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
CuckEverlasting posted:Are you fucktards even actually talking about the loving case anymore? What does whether the patient's participation is voluntary or not have to do with whether it should be legal for someone advertising themselves as a treatment center to give proven harmful medical or psychological advice. Like I don't get what one has to do with the other, should I be able to sell radium water as Jesus' Health Tonic as long as people agree to drink it? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What does whether the patient's participation is voluntary or not have to do with whether it should be legal for someone advertising themselves as a treatment center to give proven harmful medical or psychological advice. quote:I... understand that I have civil rights [for]... exercising the religion of my choice. Teen Challenge is an evangelical Christian discipleship ministry for people with life-controlling problems. As such, I realize and submit to the ministry’s expectations to attend Christian religious activities coordinated by the ministry... I fully understand my rights and what I am waiving.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
"Aligning your chakras" is just imaginary stuff that doesn't do anything. I'd say there's a difference between that and giving a patient proven medically harmful advice. If the APA came out and said that reiki was psychologically harmful and linked to depression and suicide, no I don't think you should be allowed to sell it as a treatment of anything, and I don't think you should be able to recommend it while you're treating someone and then say "oh no that part where I told my patient to do something dangerous was just my beliefs lol  "
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:"Aligning your chakras" is just imaginary stuff that doesn't do anything. I'd say there's a difference between that and giving a patient proven medically harmful advice. What is the proven medically harmful advice here? You don't even know the specifics of the case. The stuff revealed in that ruling seems to show he had a very big substance abuse issue. Since the United States really doesn't have the government rehab options that are needed for people. And since most private rehabs are usually quite expensive; I assume this program was either free or the only one affordable enough to be admitted to. I mean the person decided to go there instead of going to jail right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
But, again, there is no allegation that Christian values were offered as medical advice. Christian values have not been proved medically harmful, and even if they were statistically correlated, I wouldn't find that sufficient grounds to curtail someone's freedom of religion. (If we're abandoning the concept of freedom of belief, that's a whole different discussion.) I think you're treading on dangerous ground. If a Reiki practitioner claimed that their technique was just as effective in treating tumors as chemo, I would agree that false claims such as that should be illegal. But if a religious leader tells his followers that God forbids blood transfusions, as Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses' believe, should he be arrested for giving bad medical advice?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
The part where the people claiming to be treating someone for drug addiction went and told a gay person he needed to not be gay anymore? Are you claiming that's not harmful, or are you claiming that it's okay to give people harmful advice if you keep your prices low, or what are you saying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 07:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:But, again, there is no allegation that Christian values were offered as medical advice. Christian values have not been proved medically harmful, and even if they were statistically correlated, I wouldn't find that sufficient grounds to curtail someone's freedom of religion. (If we're abandoning the concept of freedom of belief, that's a whole different discussion.) I think you're treading on dangerous ground. If a Reiki practitioner claimed that their technique was just as effective in treating tumors as chemo, I would agree that false claims such as that should be illegal. But if a religious leader tells his followers that God forbids blood transfusions, as Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses' believe, should he be arrested for giving bad medical advice? You're conflating several things here. You're conflating "don't be gay" with "Christian values", those aren't the same thing at all. You're also conflating something a pastor might say in general with what someone specifically claiming to be treating your medical condition might say. My pastor could say "will you have sex with me" or "God wants you to have sex with me" to a parishioner, but I don't think someone advertising themselves as a counselor and taking that role of authority with a patient should be able to say those things. Do you understand the difference between a "goes to the same church" relationship, and a therapist-patient relationship?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 07:07
|
|