|
VitalSigns posted:You're conflating several things here. You're conflating "don't be gay" with "Christian values", those aren't the same thing at all. Also, a lot of rehab centers, including this one, don't claim to provide medical treatment. They explicitly billed themselves as a "Christian discipleship ministry for people with life-controlling problems." As far as I can tell, Nicklaus was never in a patient relationship with anyone counseling him about his homosexuality.
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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? I'm not sure how you'd quantify it as "harmful" even though I agree at face value that it is harmful. Like "take colloidal silver to cure your cancer" is obviously harmful, "to accept Christ and be rid of your sins involves not being gay so you should stop that" is a bit more subtle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 07:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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? Do we know exactly how many times this happened or how common it was?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:For these Christians, "don't be gay" is one of their values. It's not our place to dictate that. Going to a facility for rehabilitation instead of jailtime for a medical issue like drug addiction seems like a counselor-patient relationship to me. Would you be comfortable if counselors were loving the people in their care, since you don't think there's an authority and trust relationship there? I'm not comfortable allowing organizations that claim to offer criminal rehabilitation but don't have to follow any standards or ethics because oh if we hurt someone it was just bible study. Having to follow the same rules as the rest of society isn't an attack on Christianity. E: Also when your charges could literally go to jail if they don't get a passing grade from you, I don't think you get to play the "oh I'm sure he could tell which parts were the program and which were just optional friendly advice!" card. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
This is a bad discussion about a dumb hypothetical
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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 conflating what now likely looks like some non-medical counselor making rear end in a top hat comments about homosexuality with running a literal torture the gay away camp. ...and now apparently rape as well?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:...and now apparently rape as well? Oh okay so you do agree there is a power relationship here and the counselors at these places should be held to a higher standard of ethics and behavior than a bible study leader. Okay good glad you agree? Jarmak posted:You're conflating what now likely looks like some non-medical counselor making rear end in a top hat comments about homosexuality with running a literal torture the gay away camp. Again I don't think people should get to style themselves counselors, claim to be able to rehabilitate people, and take in people with psychological problems who are faced with jailtime if the counselor doesn't approve of their progress and then go "oops I'm not trained or even baseline competent in what I claim to be able to do, don't hold me to any standards of conduct!" Why are you so against holding anyone to any sort of professional standards in any thread? Maybe people who are assholes to patients with psychiatric problems shouldn't, uh, be licensed to counsel anyone? And maybe the state shouldn't let unlicensed therapists practice at all? Or at least not allow them to require their patients to waive their right to the court system and agree to let some sharia law kangaroo court handle claims of abuse? I am not comfortable with people who want to be able to take over the state's job of rehabilitation being able to demand that their patients agree that they not be subject to the court's oversight and instead their fellow fundy friends get to hold them to even lower standards than the already-abysmal standard of our criminal justice system. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Nov 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh okay so you do agree there is a power relationship here and the counselors at these places should be held to a higher standard of ethics and behavior than a bible study leader. I think the only alternative then for this individual was jail then. I mean clearly no one else would take him in. And he was begging to go to stay out of prison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:For these Christians, "don't be gay" is one of their values. It's not our place to dictate that. Was it our place to dictate that their values were wrong when they held up beliefs that slavery was just jim crackin dandy? quote:Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. quote:1 Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:For these Christians, "don't be gay" is one of their values. It's not our place to dictate that. I am in a position where I am both a Christian and a gay person who has experienced quite a bit of hostility when I was growing up from Fundamentalists. I didn't get to choose as a child to be hated or to be taught this hate for myself. I think it is absolutely our place to call out injustice where we see it. I don't think it i remotely okay to try to change people's sexual orientation no matter what the excuse is. Hate is not a family value and they have been granted a position to force it on people and I think it is a great wrong that we condone people saying to some marginalized groups that God doesn't love them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:I am in a position where I am both a Christian and a gay person who has experienced quite a bit of hostility when I was growing up from Fundamentalists. I didn't get to choose as a child to be hated or to be taught this hate for myself. I think it is absolutely our place to call out injustice where we see it. I don't think it i remotely okay to try to change people's sexual orientation no matter what the excuse is. Hate is not a family value and they have been granted a position to force it on people and I think it is a great wrong that we condone people saying to some marginalized groups that God doesn't love them. Agreed. The kind of people who use Christianity to justify their bigotry are the same sorts who have popped up on the media recently saying that Jesus' saying "All who draw the sword shall die by the sword" is actually him saying shoot those government agents who are coming to take your guns, or that the "eye of the needle" was actually a real gate in the Jerusalem wall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What should be illegal is the quackery of gay conversion therapy. Can't you? If you willingly request and agree to the procedure, what's there to stop a properly-written arbitration contract from blocking a civil case? There may be criminal consequences for a doctor who performs such obviously-dangerous procedures (though on the other hand, it's not like anyone went to jail for convincing Steve Jobs to use alternative medicine for his cancer instead of real medicine), and any real doctor would likely lose their license, but if the contract is properly written then I don't see what about that situation would invalidate an arbitration clause? VitalSigns posted: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. This is one hell of a slippery slope though, because many medical procedures are dangerous or have nasty consequences or side effects, and may not always be effective. If it's malpractice to give someone a procedure with some risk of negative side effects which may not be effective at treating the core problem, then half of the medical field is malpractice - particularly cancer treatment, which already shows up in the courts more than its fair share. VitalSigns posted:Why are you so against holding anyone to any sort of professional standards in any thread? Maybe people who are assholes to patients with psychiatric problems shouldn't, uh, be licensed to counsel anyone? And maybe the state shouldn't let unlicensed therapists practice at all? You're conflating entirely separate issues here, so let's break them down and approach them individually - and yes, it is important to treat them separately, because it's pretty hard to identify solutions when you're too busy shouting that everything is wrong at once. The problem with banning unlicensed therapists from practice is that it's really hard to ban people from giving advice. At some point you have to draw a legal distinction between "therapy" and "listening to people's problems and then giving them advice", and it's really hard to come up with a place to draw the line that doesn't leave room for loopholes, especially if you're trying not to ban mentoring or enrichment or religious programs and groups. Incidentally, Teen Challenge's site doesn't use the words "treatment", "counseling", or "therapy" anywhere. Instead, they claim to offer "structure", "education", "Christian mentoring that can help young people find their way back to who they were before they got lost in life-controlling problems", and opportunities to "discover a new identity in Christ" and "acquire a new value system that [...] helps them become productive, healthy members of society". Everyone has a legal right to willingly agree to arbitration. There aren't any exceptions for specific fields that I'm aware of, and if there were, they certainly wouldn't be for a field as nebulous and vague as therapy. The mother apparently didn't see any problem with agreeing not to sue when she pushed for her child to be put into that program. Note also that arbitration agreements only protect the parties from civil cases. If the state thought that any of Teen Challenge's conduct rose to the level of, say, criminal negligence, they'd be in court and the agreement wouldn't do a thing to stop that. Teen Challenge doesn't seem to have been "trying to take over the state's job of rehabilitation" - it was the patient and his family who wanted to do it so badly that they persuaded the state to accept it. If they were really that bothered, they were free to try the state's version of rehabilitation instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Agreed. The kind of people who use Christianity to justify their bigotry are the same sorts who have popped up on the media recently saying that Jesus' saying "All who draw the sword shall die by the sword" is actually him saying shoot those government agents who are coming to take your guns, or that the "eye of the needle" was actually a real gate in the Jerusalem wall. Except the bible does actually justify certain kinds of bigotry. It's not like prosperity theology, the bible is pretty explicit about things like homosexuality and the role of women. To pretend like there's no biblical basis is ignorant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh okay so you do agree there is a power relationship here and the counselors at these places should be held to a higher standard of ethics and behavior than a bible study leader. What in the loving christ are you on about, I asked for clarification whether it turned out that all the talk about "trying to make him straight" and "gay conversation therapy" turned out to be utter bullshit like the rest of the original article since subsequent information is making it sound like it was nothing of the sort. Anyone being a anti-homosexual bigot is a bad thing, but having an employee on staff that's an rear end in a top hat at the fundie camp you begged the judge to let you go to, and then ODing after getting kicked out for refusing to stop getting hosed up at rehab is not the same thing as "Man commits suicide after being sentenced to gay conversation therapy by a judge that made him sign his legal rights in favor of fundie arbitration, sharia in the US!!!1".
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
tsa posted:Except the bible does actually justify certain kinds of bigotry. It's not like prosperity theology, the bible is pretty explicit about things like homosexuality and the role of women. To pretend like there's no biblical basis is ignorant. quote:Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. The bible is *used* to justify bigotry but the bible was written nearly two thousand years ago and Paul's letters were primarily about how to live in the time that it was written. It is applicable to us today to some extent but we have to keep in mind the progress we have made since then. There has been a long running conversation since the bible about morality. Its not like Jesus said anything about texting whilst driving either. Yes slavery is part of that but that is because slavery (and not the chattle slavery of the Americas) was ubiquitous practice at the time and the passage appears in the context of a letter about how to get along with people. Like the next few bits tell slave owners not to be cruel to their slaves, an expectation completely ignored by people using the passage someone quoted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Trent posted:If you didn't care about the actual thrust of the argument, and were just popping in with a correction, the criticism wouldn't apply to you in the first place. quote:It was about actual stakeholders in the argument attacking sidebar weak points and irrelevant minutae when confronted with counterarguments, intentionally deviating from anything truly relevant to the topic or the obvious thesis of their interlocutor, thereby arguing in bad faith. In other words, ignoring substantial points to quibble about bullshit. A substantive reply that also included a minor factual correction would not come under fire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
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. For an example of this, it's like someone repeatedly pointing out when people concerned about racism misstate facts or make other mistakes in their arguments*. While their arguments are technically correct, it doesn't change the fact that the main thrust of their opponents' arguments (that racism is a big issue) is still true. This is why such tactics are often (and usually correctly) treated as an attempt to derail discussion about important issues. *I want to clarify that pointing out these mistakes is fine. The problem is when pointing out those mistakes is literally all you do. It's okay if you say something along the lines of "I agree _____ is an issue, but you're wrong about ______."
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Yeah, but if you say that police bigotry against furries is a problem because furries are one hundred times more likely to be arrested than non-furries, I don't think I should have to state that I agree with you before pointing out that it isn't true. That's just a lazy cop-out to insist that people agree with your premise before they're allowed to question your facts.E-Tank posted:Was it our place to dictate that their values were wrong when they held up beliefs that slavery was just jim crackin dandy? Mandy Thompson posted:I am in a position where I am both a Christian and a gay person who has experienced quite a bit of hostility when I was growing up from Fundamentalists. I didn't get to choose as a child to be hated or to be taught this hate for myself. I think it is absolutely our place to call out injustice where we see it. I don't think it i remotely okay to try to change people's sexual orientation no matter what the excuse is. Hate is not a family value and they have been granted a position to force it on people and I think it is a great wrong that we condone people saying to some marginalized groups that God doesn't love them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 00:45
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, but if you say that police bigotry against furries is a problem because furries are one hundred times more likely to be arrested than non-furries, I don't think I should have to state that I agree with you before pointing out that it isn't true. That's just a lazy cop-out to insist that people agree with your premise before they're allowed to question your facts. If you disagree with the premise, argue against the premise instead of engaging in propaganda bullshit.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, but if you say that police bigotry against furries is a problem because furries are one hundred times more likely to be arrested than non-furries, I don't think I should have to state that I agree with you before pointing out that it isn't true. That's just a lazy cop-out to insist that people agree with your premise before they're allowed to question your facts. It is when they are taking over part of the state's job. When people are sent there by courts, it for instance, absolutely should not be okay to force anti-gay conversions, something that there is universal consensus among psychiatrists is unethical, dangerous, and harmful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If you disagree with the premise, argue against the premise instead of engaging in propaganda bullshit. Mandy Thompson posted:It is when they are taking over part of the state's job. When people are sent there by courts, it for instance, absolutely should not be okay to force anti-gay conversions, something that there is universal consensus among psychiatrists is unethical, dangerous, and harmful. Second, Teen Challenge is not acting on behalf of or in place of the state. They are not a part of the criminal justice system. Unless I'm mistaken, Nicklaus was set to go to jail for violating his DUI probation, but asked the prosecutor and judge to suspend the sentence on the condition that he complete Teen Challenge's program, which Nicklaus' family selected. The prosecutor and judge agreed. The judge could not, on his own, compel someone to attend Teen Challenge. If you owe $500 in fines, but convince the court to suspend your sentence as long as you complete 50 hours of community service with Habitat for Humanity, Habitat does not magically become a state actor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 02:35
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Your premise should follow from the facts. Rational people don't decide on a conclusion and then go looking for facts that support it. Nor do they believe that a conclusion should still stand if the supporting assertions are disproved. Did they never teach you the scientific method in school, dipshit? Hypothesis comes before experiment. In addition, I don't believe you understand the actual premise here, and are operating on the assumption everyone should be a legalistic wretch of some kind. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:This is one hell of a slippery slope though, because many medical procedures are dangerous or have nasty consequences or side effects, and may not always be effective. If it's malpractice to give someone a procedure with some risk of negative side effects which may not be effective at treating the core problem, then half of the medical field is malpractice - particularly cancer treatment, which already shows up in the courts more than its fair share. No it isn't. that's the job of the AMA and the APA, to define what procedures are ethical if risky and which are dangerous and unjustifiable. Somehow we managed to ban radium water without banning chemotherapy so I don't think the slope is as slippery as you claim and it is in fact possible to shut down camps that drive kids to suicide by telling them to pray the gay away without taking everyone's bibles and banning Christianity. Main Paineframe posted:The problem with banning unlicensed therapists from practice is that it's really hard to ban people from giving advice. At some point you have to draw a legal distinction between "therapy" and "listening to people's problems and then giving them advice", and it's really hard to come up with a place to draw the line that doesn't leave room for loopholes, especially if you're trying not to ban mentoring or enrichment or religious programs and groups. Incidentally, Teen Challenge's site doesn't use the words "treatment", "counseling", or "therapy" anywhere. Instead, they claim to offer "structure", "education", "Christian mentoring that can help young people find their way back to who they were before they got lost in life-controlling problems", and opportunities to "discover a new identity in Christ" and "acquire a new value system that [...] helps them become productive, healthy members of society". This is the problem I have, if they never claimed to provide treatment or have qualified counselors then the court shouldn't be sending people there. And I don't think "but his mommy asked to" is a good reason: laypeople aren't qualified to make judgments in professional fields and the court shouldn't just send people off to whatever random place sent their mom a brochure. Maybe Teen Challenge is all happy bible fun times for everyone (although I doubt it if the counselors are telling kids to pray the gay away), but when you face jailtime for not satisfactorily completing the program it becomes coercive. The court should absolutely look into whether people are qualified to treat people before sending them there, it's ridiculous that a judge sends them somewhere where being incompetent is its excuse for not being held to standards of care. Main Paineframe posted:Everyone has a legal right to willingly agree to arbitration. There aren't any exceptions for specific fields that I'm aware of, and if there were, they certainly wouldn't be for a field as nebulous and vague as therapy. The mother apparently didn't see any problem with agreeing not to sue when she pushed for her child to be put into that program. Note also that arbitration agreements only protect the parties from civil cases. If the state thought that any of Teen Challenge's conduct rose to the level of, say, criminal negligence, they'd be in court and the agreement wouldn't do a thing to stop that. Right that's why Florida should shut down bible camps that tell kids to pray the gay away, then there can be criminal consequences for doing it and it won't matter that their marketing tricked a layperson into agreeing to forfeit her right to seek redress in the courts and let some fundy kangaroo court make the decisions about liability. Or at the very least the state should never agree to send people to places like that no matter how glossy their brochures were. Main Paineframe posted:Teen Challenge doesn't seem to have been "trying to take over the state's job of rehabilitation" - it was the patient and his family who wanted to do it so badly that they persuaded the state to accept it. If they were really that bothered, they were free to try the state's version of rehabilitation instead. No I think it's the state's job to make sure they're turning over prisoners to actual qualified counselors, not stupid bigoted incompetent assholes who are going to make everything worse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is the problem I have, if they never claimed to provide treatment or have qualified counselors then the court shouldn't be sending people there. And I don't think "but his mommy asked to" is a good reason: laypeople aren't qualified to make judgments in professional fields and the court shouldn't just send people off to whatever random place sent their mom a brochure. Maybe Teen Challenge is all happy bible fun times for everyone (although I doubt it if the counselors are telling kids to pray the gay away), but when you face jailtime for not satisfactorily completing the program it becomes coercive. The court should absolutely look into whether people are qualified to treat people before sending them there, it's ridiculous that a judge sends them somewhere where being incompetent is its excuse for not being held to standards of care. And this brings it right back around to my point that the courts and society as a whole does not treat addiction as an actual health issue but as a failing of moral character that is to be punished and can be overcome by virtue. The court isn't sending him there for "treatment" in a medical sense, it's sending him there for rehabilitation to fix a character flaw. I think we need to address this as a society first and foremost - seeing addiction as a disease rather than a moral failing - and everything else just kinda falls into place after that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:And this brings it right back around to my point that the courts and society as a whole does not treat addiction as an actual health issue but as a failing of moral character that is to be punished and can be overcome by virtue. The court isn't sending him there for "treatment" in a medical sense, it's sending him there for rehabilitation to fix a character flaw. I think we need to address this as a society first and foremost - seeing addiction as a disease rather than a moral failing - and everything else just kinda falls into place after that. Yeah I agree with you here
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:For an example of this, it's like someone repeatedly pointing out when people concerned about racism misstate facts or make other mistakes in their arguments*. While their arguments are technically correct, it doesn't change the fact that the main thrust of their opponents' arguments (that racism is a big issue) is still true. This is why such tactics are often (and usually correctly) treated as an attempt to derail discussion about important issues. Poster A: Racism is a big issue because 2+2=7 Poster B: 2+2=4, further even if 2+2=7, that would be poor evidence that racism is a big issue Why is it more important that B preface their statement with "I agree that racism is a big issue" which is a kindergarten level thing to say and unrelated to their actual point than for A just to not make a lovely point? Would you prefer that people not point out mistakes? The issue with creating distractions isn't pointing out mistakes, it's when people incorrectly defend mistakes. This is pretty insane to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it isn't. that's the job of the AMA and the APA, to define what procedures are ethical if risky and which are dangerous and unjustifiable. Somehow we managed to ban radium water without banning chemotherapy so I don't think the slope is as slippery as you claim and it is in fact possible to shut down camps that drive kids to suicide by telling them to pray the gay away without taking everyone's bibles and banning Christianity. Radium water isn't a medical procedure, and it isn't banned. It can't be marketed as medicine without approval by the FDA, but Congress has carved out enormous loopholes for pseudoscience industries, so there are lots of ways around that restriction. Even if you're selling literal poison (the bleach enema makes radium water look safe by comparison), as long as you're careful about your advertising and labeling, the worst you can get hit with in the US is "selling misbranded drugs". As for chemotherapy, I brought it up specifically because cancer treatment can be surprisingly contentious and shows up in the courts a lot. Chemo side effects are so miserable that even people with highly curable cancers and extremely positive chances of survival sometimes drop out of treatment midway and pursue more pleasant alternative medicine "treatments" instead. From there, you only need a couple more circumstances added in to end up in a case like Virginia v. Starchild Abraham Cherrix. First of all, the court can do basically whatever the gently caress they want, as evidenced by the case earlier this year when a judge sentenced a man to marriage (and copying a Bible verse 25 times a day). Aside from that, there's the question if how to evaluate the effectiveness of such programs. Simply requiring licensing is problematic, because faith-based organizations are exempt from licensing requirements in a number of states (including Florida, the state in question), and Bush opened up federal funding to those groups as well (he even specifically cited Teen Challenge as an example of faith-based treatment organizations being better than secular ones, which he said was because the government is incapable of love). That doesn't just go for counseling and treatment, either - for example, thirteen states exempt faith-based childcare organizations from usual licensing requirements for childcare, and don't even get me started on faith-based prisons. Can't necessarily look at success rates, either, because Teen Challenge claims a 70+% success rate (drastically higher than most secular programs) and has studies to back it up. Some have criticized the methodology of those studies, and the massive difference in success rates almost certainly indicates serious discrepancies with the measurement methodology, but those are the only numbers we have on Teen Challenge's performance. There just isn't much solid basis for specifically denying Teen Challenge, aside from "religion is bullshit", which is unlikely to carry much water in a Tennessee courtroom. As for banning faith-based programs outright in Florida, I think the Florida Faith-Based and Community-Based Advisory Council (an official state agency set up by the governor to In any case, although the media has almost exclusively covered the homosexuality aspect, the lawsuit and negligence allegations actually seem to focus on more practical questions like "how did he end up in a CVS at 1am in an unfamiliar city after he was supposedly discharged and sent to the hospital". While it's likely that his time at Teen Challenge probably didn't help his mental state much, the family is much more concerned about exactly how he ended up drinking himself to death in the apartment of a total stranger after he was supposedly discharged and sent off to treatment - was he just kicked out onto the street with nowhere to go?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Right that's why Florida should shut down bible camps that tell kids to pray the gay away, then there can be criminal consequences for doing it and it won't matter that their marketing tricked a layperson into agreeing to forfeit her right to seek redress in the courts and let some fundy kangaroo court make the decisions about liability. The arbitration agreement was three paragraphs on a single page. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/02/business/dealbook/document-nick-ellisons-agreement-with-teen-challenge.html It also wasn't the mother's right to sign away, the deceased was an adult. It wasn't like Uber where it was hidden or added in after the employment contracts were done up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Mandy Thompson posted:The bible is *used* to justify bigotry but the bible was written nearly two thousand years ago and Paul's letters were primarily about how to live in the time that it was written. It is applicable to us today to some extent but we have to keep in mind the progress we have made since then. There has been a long running conversation since the bible about morality. Its not like Jesus said anything about texting whilst driving either. Yes slavery is part of that but that is because slavery (and not the chattle slavery of the Americas) was ubiquitous practice at the time and the passage appears in the context of a letter about how to get along with people. Like the next few bits tell slave owners not to be cruel to their slaves, an expectation completely ignored by people using the passage someone quoted. What things do we need to keep in mind about how pounding men in the butt is different today than in the age of Paul?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:20
|
|
twodot posted:Why is this a problem? We have two posters: Well, twodot, it's a tactic designed to be unproductive, because the guy using it in this thread immediately admitted that, actually, he disagrees with the premises. So it's all about avoiding real engagement in actual practice. So it's, in turn, an example of dishonest behavior, because it's about attacking without engaging. Thus, people who want to be honest should avoid using it. Maoist Pussy posted:What things do we need to keep in mind about how pounding men in the butt is different today than in the age of Paul? Like, this guy here, unwilling to actually upfront say that he believes Christianity is inherently gay-hatin', only insinuating such.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, twodot, it's a tactic designed to be unproductive, because the guy using it in this thread immediately admitted that, actually, he disagrees with the premises. So it's all about avoiding real engagement in actual practice. So it's, in turn, an example of dishonest behavior, because it's about attacking without engaging. Thus, people who want to be honest should avoid using it. zoux posted:I'll tell you who's got a loving war-boner, it's CNN. Their site has been at defcon 5 since the attacks. quote:Like, this guy here, unwilling to actually upfront say that he believes Christianity is inherently gay-hatin', only insinuating such.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 20:32
|
|
twodot posted:Oh weird, you made a post that isn't full of garbage. How can a post that is correcting what all sides agree is a mistake be considered unproductive? Surely ridding a thread of inaccuracy is productive behavior? If someone sincerely believes someone made a mistake, how can correcting it be considered dishonest? I don't understand why avoiding "real engagement" is considered a problem, in fact, Ytlaya seems to believe that it's fine to avoid real engagement so long as you put magic words in front your lack of engagement declaring which tribe you belong to. Here's an example: Okay. I see that you're using "tribe" here, and also being a snotty lil prick. Put together, these suggest, that is to say, they create the implication, that you believe yourself to be rational, as opposed to the loony libz. This in turn actually degrades the conversation, because only obsessive psychopaths will continue for long when a smarmy dickhead is demanding that they (metaphorically) eat poo poo with every post and most people will back down at the first sign of this happening. So, while it is possible for someone to genuinely correct inaccuracies out of a neutral perspective, it's far more common to see someone doing it who is giving off signs they wish to argue from a safe distance, generally, it seems, because they have a particular kind of brain damage, like yourself. As a consequence, even though you may just possibly be sincere about your desire to only tread the upward path and merely ensure accuracy, you lack the communication skills to make that happen and so you will either have to deal with it or run crying to the mods demanding that nobody be allowed to make these kinds of accusations. Since you can't understand a very basic generalization, or else are deliberately avoiding the topic, you're either too stupid or malevolent to do the former. So I look forward to the continual whine as people freely engage in propaganda tactics and bald dishonesty, and all who point this out are relentlessly probated, and so on and so forth.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay. I see that you're using "tribe" here, and also being a snotty lil prick. Put together, these suggest, that is to say, they create the implication, that you believe yourself to be rational, as opposed to the loony libz. This in turn actually degrades the conversation, because only obsessive psychopaths will continue for long when a smarmy dickhead is demanding that they (metaphorically) eat poo poo with every post and most people will back down at the first sign of this happening. quote:So, while it is possible for someone to genuinely correct inaccuracies out of a neutral perspective, it's far more common to see someone doing it who is giving off signs they wish to argue from a safe distance, generally, it seems, because they have a particular kind of brain damage, like yourself. As a consequence, even though you may just possibly be sincere about your desire to only tread the upward path and merely ensure accuracy, you lack the communication skills to make that happen and so you will either have to deal with it or run crying to the mods demanding that nobody be allowed to make these kinds of accusations. I'm fine with people making whatever accusations they want, what I'm saying is if you make a basic factual error, and then complain about being corrected, you look like someone who doesn't care about actual reality, so that's a bad thing to complain about. I also don't understand your standard here, you've switched from talking about being/appearing honest to what looks like pragmatism, but it's weird, because you seem to be talking about me personally, when I'm talking about whether technicalities as a concept make any sense in this context. Like feel free to argue that I'm personally ineffective at correcting people's mistakes, that doesn't have any bearing on whether complaining about technicalities is in general reasonable. quote:Since you can't understand a very basic generalization, or else are deliberately avoiding the topic, you're either too stupid or malevolent to do the former.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:wiping your rear end with the First Amendment No I'm not, as you note the carveouts for pseudoscience and assorted bullshit exist because congress explicitly chose to create them. The courts have traditionally interpreted the commerce clause broadly and I have a hard time accepting that if congress decides to start properly regulating the snake-oil industries that the court will suddenly reverse and decide harmful fake medicine is protected speech (okay well maybe this Supreme Court would, I need to wait for one of the 5 Hobby Lobby judges to die). I have a low opinion of homeopathy and faith-based bullshit whenever they try to make empirical claims and I have no interest in protecting that, although you're right that practically I'm unlikely to see the kind of laws I want because of the power of the bullshit artists and the weird ability of hucksters to gin up ridiculous fears of impossible Christian persecution to keep regulators from being empowered to scrutinize their crap.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Is it moral to start bombing arbitration courts?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 21:44
|
|
twodot posted:I thought implying that your posts are typically full of garbage would be the thing that would tip you off that I think you're an idiot. Well, okay, you've managed to successfully convince me you're a loving idiot, rather than malevolent. It seems you can learn. Your post basically misses the entire point and skims along for a good fifty feet. The point, here, is that the complaint is about how most of the "just making corrections" posts connote dishonest argumentation. Indeed, people actually admit to this connotation being an accurate one! So if you want to avoid those associations, you need to formulate your correction in such a way as to avoid this connotation. People do this all the time. A good place to start would be to avoid calling people crazy, as a general rule, when you're making those corrections. I know this will be a burden for such supremely rational and saintly people who face these unjust accusations, but you'll just have to lump it.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No I'm not, as you note the carveouts for pseudoscience and assorted bullshit exist because congress explicitly chose to create them. The courts have traditionally interpreted the commerce clause broadly and I have a hard time accepting that if congress decides to start properly regulating the snake-oil industries that the court will suddenly reverse and decide harmful fake medicine is protected speech (okay well maybe this Supreme Court would, I need to wait for one of the 5 Hobby Lobby judges to die). Sure, I agree that homeopathy, dietary supplements, and such should be regulated by the FDA. But talking is not and will never be regulated by the FDA, not even if it includes the words "God" or "Bible", and if Congress decided to ban discussing life problems and decisions with your pastor then you'd better loving believe the courts would have a thing or two to say about "free speech" and "religious freedom".
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:probated prick tactics the implication loony actually very basic psychopaths dickhead bald dishonesty relentlessly eat poo poo
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Your post basically misses the entire point and skims along for a good fifty feet. The point, here, is that the complaint is about how most of the "just making corrections" posts connote dishonest argumentation. Indeed, people actually admit to this connotation being an accurate one! So if you want to avoid those associations, you need to formulate your correction in such a way as to avoid this connotation. People do this all the time. quote:A good place to start would be to avoid calling people crazy, as a general rule, when you're making those corrections. I know this will be a burden for such supremely rational and saintly people who face these unjust accusations, but you'll just have to lump it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 22:02
|
|