twodot posted:I'm missing your point because your point is not related to mine, so feel free to stop quoting me. Free standing factual corrections should not be considered bad faith actions, because that is ridiculous. Pragmatically, maybe that belief is in the minority and if I personally want people to like me I should take that into account, but that's not an argument for considering factual corrections bad faith actions. Okay. So. Dead Reckoning admitted, right in this thread, to following the exact process that people are accused of engaging in. So, in fact, people do make *in nasally voice* "bad faith actions" under the guise of corrections. That is an indisputable fact. It's also true that not everyone faces those accusations. I am arguing that this is because people primarily use connotations in the post itself to conclude whether the post is in bad faith. Your argument is that we should give people free reign to argue in bad faith. You use words like "pragmatic" to disguise this fundamentally idiotic position, probably because you are an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:07 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted: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". You know there's a reason slippery slope is a fallacy right? There's a world of difference between talking to your pastor bout stuff, and someone posing as a treatment counselor giving you harmful false recommendations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay. So. Dead Reckoning admitted, right in this thread, to following the exact process that people are accused of engaging in. So, in fact, people do make *in nasally voice* "bad faith actions" under the guise of corrections. That is an indisputable fact. It's also true that not everyone faces those accusations. I am arguing that this is because people primarily use connotations in the post itself to conclude whether the post is in bad faith. There's a variety of actions I'm opposed to that aren't factual corrections, so no, I'm not trying offer people free reign to argue in bad faith. I'm saying people should have free reign to correct mistaken facts. I have no clue why people would be opposed to factual corrections, except that they anticipate making a bunch of factual errors, and don't want to be inconvenienced by reality. twodot fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Nov 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 22:19
|
|
twodot posted:Someone can claim to be making a factual correction in bad faith, but that doesn't make it true. Correcting a false statement simply can't be dishonest (I suppose excepting a person who was attempting to be dishonest, but accidently made a true correction). You can argue in bad faith and also offer factual corrections, but the factual corrections themselves can only be right or wrong. That's the whole point of disconnecting them from broader points. Well, buddy, if you're going to argue that we should view things without any context and always treat things in isolation, you can go ahead and claim victory here. Just make sure to explain how you did it.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Neither of you are actually discussing the topic at hand; Man suicides after court ordered Christian drug program tried to ungay him
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Speaking of which, can we get a thread title change, since it's not true?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion: The Problem Attic > Bible Study, Apple Pie, America Under Attack By The Perfidious Jew Media
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You know there's a reason slippery slope is a fallacy right? How do you know that it was a treatment councilor and not just an employee of the organization? Edit: Or even just another person in treatment? The suicide note wasn't particularly definitive
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
twodot posted:This person doesn't know how DEFCON works, but I don't give a poo poo nor know anything about how CNN operates. Why shouldn't I just post "That's not how DEFCON works" without actually engaging with what is clearly their point? It may not be how the actual DEFCON system works but it's how the common expression is used by most people and therefore is how most people understand and parse the phrase and pointing out otherwise is pretty darn  Now me pointing out that is also pretty darn but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
I guess requiring counselors to adhere to professional standards of care with their patients wouldn't protect the patient from rando janitors nor from other patients, what's your point? Is that a reason not to have standards of care?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:How do you know that it was a treatment councilor and not just an employee of the organization? How do we know he faced any harassment at all? Heck, are we even sure he was gay? How can we be certain he wasn't just making it all up to try and get them in trouble? Maybe he didn't actually kill himself, and this is all just part of a long con?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
Even if it was just a rouge employee, that still seems like it would be there fault. For not keeping an eye on their employee.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You know there's a reason slippery slope is a fallacy right? It's not a matter of slippery slope. The problem with banning non-professional counseling is that counseling is basically just giving advice, and a number of non-licensed figures - community leaders, nonprofit execs, and prominent members of religious groups or organizations - have traditionally been approached for amateur counseling. You say there's a world of difference between talking to your pastor about your addiction and talking to a "treatment counselor", but in either case, you're just telling a person about your problems and getting advice in return. Fundamentally, the primary difference between talking to the pastor and talking to the mental health counselor is that it's illegal to call yourself the latter without complying with licensing and training requirements and therefore the latter will give better advice. However, those requirements are not attached to "what they do", they're attached to "what they call themselves". Anyone can do counseling without being a licensed mental health counselor, they just can't call themselves a "mental health counselor" because it's (typically) a protected title. You can't ban people from doing amateur counseling any more than you can ban people from giving amateur medical advice, because it is way harder to regulate words than it is to regulate procedures and chemicals. CharlestheHammer posted:Even if it was just a rouge employee, that still seems like it would be there fault. For not keeping an eye on their employee. The NYT does cite a gay Teen Challenge employee and graduate who apparently told them that gayness was frowned upon and that people would be told it was bad, and the NYT also claims to have counselors' reports indicating that they tried to convince Ellison that homosexuality is wrong. However it's not clear that being criticized for his homosexuality had anything to do at all with his death, which was likely not an intentional suicide. It may have possibly contributed to his relapses, but he had addiction problems that sometimes led to violent consequences long before he entered the program, so it'd be quite the uphill battle to blame his death on anything the counselors may have said about homosexuality. That's why the lawsuit was about how he managed to get out of Teen Challenge's custody and disappear after supposedly being sent to a hospital, rather than about anything that happened during the counseling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's not a matter of slippery slope. The problem with banning non-professional counseling is that counseling is basically just giving advice, and a number of non-licensed figures - community leaders, nonprofit execs, and prominent members of religious groups or organizations - have traditionally been approached for amateur counseling. You say there's a world of difference between talking to your pastor about your addiction and talking to a "treatment counselor", but in either case, you're just telling a person about your problems and getting advice in return. Fundamentally, the primary difference between talking to the pastor and talking to the mental health counselor is that it's illegal to call yourself the latter without complying with licensing and training requirements and therefore the latter will give better advice. However, those requirements are not attached to "what they do", they're attached to "what they call themselves". Anyone can do counseling without being a licensed mental health counselor, they just can't call themselves a "mental health counselor" because it's (typically) a protected title. You can't ban people from doing amateur counseling any more than you can ban people from giving amateur medical advice, because it is way harder to regulate words than it is to regulate procedures and chemicals. You do realize that practicing medicine without a license is A Thing you can be arrested for, right? Like people are banned from giving amateur medical advice in a lot of situations. The way I see it society considers mental health to be a second-class wishy-washy medical profession where you just talk about your ~feelings~ and psychologists are just really good trained talkers and not actual doctors and that's why there's a double standard when it comes to therapy that there isn't really when it comes to "physical" medicine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Except counseling is something that can be legally done with no or next to no credentials. Besides that, chiropractors exist and many of them even pretend to be doctors. If someone is just giving off advice and make no pretenses about being medically trained to do so ( in this case calling themselves a LPC or LPC-I) the complaint seems utterly vacuous. In the case in the OP we don't even know how much the kid was actually even "harassed", it could have been a one off thing from an employee for all we know. e: oh and psychologists aren't doctors, you are thinking of psychiatry. tsa fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:13
|
|
tsa posted:Except counseling is something that can be legally done with no or next to no credentials. Besides that, chiropractors exist and many of them even pretend to be doctors. If someone is just giving off advice and make no pretenses about being medically trained to do so ( in this case calling themselves a LPC or LPC-I) the complaint seems utterly vacuous. This is just a big is-ought fallacy. If we are not married to the status quo, we can put forth the argument that professional standards ought to exist for psychological counseling and that chiropractic practitioners should be required to disassociate themselves from the aura of medicine.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
tsa posted:e: oh and psychologists aren't doctors, you are thinking of psychiatry. No, psychologist is specifically what I mean. They're not medical doctors but they have doctorates (usually, the good ones do anyway) and their profession should be held to the same level of standards as medical doctors. EDIT: I mean this is exactly what I'm talking about, "they're not real doctors!" is the entire problem. Shame Boy fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:You do realize that practicing medicine without a license is A Thing you can be arrested for, right? Like people are banned from giving amateur medical advice in a lot of situations. Giving medical advice isn't considered "practicing medicine" unless the person doing it claims to be an actual doctor. That's why SA can have an entire forum dedicated to amateur medical advice, why WebMD and countless amateur medical forums exists, and why saying "suck it up and take some Tylenol" isn't an arrestable offense. Effectronica posted:This is just a big is-ought fallacy. If we are not married to the status quo, we can put forth the argument that professional standards ought to exist for psychological counseling and that chiropractic practitioners should be required to disassociate themselves from the aura of medicine. Sure, but there's a big difference between "this is illegal" and "that should be illegal", and it's really annoying when someone says the former, people correct them, and then someone else (or sometimes the same person) comes in and accuses them of being unimaginative fallacy-users who just refuse to entertain the possibility of change. It's also really annoying when someone says "that should be illegal", and when faced with the actual practical difficulties of illegalizing it, accuses people of just being too attached to the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:07 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:Giving medical advice isn't considered "practicing medicine" unless the person doing it claims to be an actual doctor. That's why SA can have an entire forum dedicated to amateur medical advice, why WebMD and countless amateur medical forums exists, and why saying "suck it up and take some Tylenol" isn't an arrestable offense. Well, that didn't happen in this thread. Parallel Paraplegic argued on the grounds of "should/ought", tsa responded in terms of confusing "is" and "ought", and you decided to make some backhanded, whiny accusations.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 03:34
|
|