|
As a weirdo who reads EULA's and contracts before signing them, arbitration agreements generally have some clause in them where the company will pick 7 arbitrators and then you and them will take turns "Crossing Out" one name on the list until only one is left. This gives you enough "choice" to get around legal problems, as far as I can tell, but is still completely bullshit since you're not picking any of them to begin with. Anyway the big deal with arbitration is that once an arbitrator decides against a company, that company will never, ever use them again. You, a person, will probably only need an arbitrator once or twice in your life, but a company could use one constantly. Arbitrators know where their money comes from, and since they generally don't have to make their results public there's really no reason why they shouldn't all just decide for the corp every single time.
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Solution: Ban conversion therapy. The APA already recognizes that Conversion Therapy is tantamount to torture and has recommended it be treated as such. Multiple states are already pushing laws banning it. I'm not sure how that's applicable since it doesn't seem like he was forced into any kind of conversion therapy program. It just sounds to me like he was forced into a fundamentalist AA program where he was told that in addition to being a Bad Person for drinking he also had the vice of homosexuality and was bad for that too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:How is this not a blatant violation of separation of church and state? He had the 'choice' of going to jail instead. Also presumably he could have gone to a secular program if those were things that existed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Adar posted:Same. My guess is they could and should sue but have no idea that they can do that because an important sounding piece of paper tells them they can't. If the description is accurate that's not even an arbitration clause in the first place, it's just some words strung together to look nice. In several cases the court upheld the arbitration clause, but it's nullified it in others, most recently against Uber: quote:But the court then found two components of the relevant contracts unenforceable. The first unenforceable clause was the so-called delegation clause which stipulated that questions concerning the enforceability of the arbitration clause would themselves be resolved by the arbitrator. Such delegation clauses are enforceable only when they are “clear and unmistakable,” and Judge Chen found that the Uber delegation clause did not meet this standard: although the delegation clause’s language was itself clear, that language conflicted with other portions of the contract that created ambiguity about which decision maker – the arbitrator or a court – would decide enforceability. This ambiguity defeated Uber’s claim that the delegation was clear and unmistakable. Judge Chen also held, in the alternative, that the delegation clause was unconscionable under California law: procedurally unconscionable because (at least with respect to one version of the contract) the opt-out clause was “buried in the contract” and substantively unconscionable because it required – in certain cases – employees to pay substantial forum fees. The only reason it worked in this case is that Uber's contract was so laughably one-sided and evil that the court found it, in legal terms, "totally bullshit" and declared it invalid.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
Adar posted:A normal arbitration clause is usually, though not always, enforceable. Yeah to be a valid arbitrator the arbitrator generally has to be certified by certain bodies (FINRA I think?) but beyond that they can be any weirdo nutjob your particular lovely world view demands decide the fate of your clients. EDIT: The authority I've seen most often in contracts is the American Arbitration Association but I'm not sure if that's legally required or just a good way to make it look like you're being ~fair~.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Woozy posted:It sounds better because you're not one of the guys who finally just executed his sentence and did way more time than he would have after years of being harassed by probation, missing work, and shaken down to the tune of thousands of dollars in fees for random drug testing, monitoring, and whatever else. Most of the people who end up in the system more than once recognize that jail is a way better deal, particularly if they qualify for work release or house arrest. The trouble with probation for drug offenders is that is has absolutely zero tolerance for relapse, which is a nearly impossible standard for drug addicts who have never been treated before. Anyone who can make it through 2-5 years of supervised probation without getting violated and serving even more time than they would have was probably never in any serious need of treatment to begin with! Seems like actually having gone to jail would disqualify you from way more jobs than probation since people seem to think jail can't reform people but probation somehow can.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:They did, and the court forced them to enter into arbitration because under Florida law, they could only bring the suit as the executors of his estate, and were bound into the contract he agreed to. Oh I didn't notice this was in Florida, yeah all bets are off here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Wow this seems extremely bizarre. Could they not establish that his death was atleast potentially a consequence of gross negligence and therefore not subject to the arbitration agreement or something? I don't know how the law works exactly but this seems hugely bizarre I mean if he actually committed intentional suicide with a note saying "I'd rather die than go back to that place" but a [Florida] judge looks at this case and sees "Bad Drug Addict young fag given the second chance of going to a good christian healing opportunity, turns away from it and OD's on drugs because he is a Bad Drug Addict"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:the family negotiated a deal with the prosecutor's office to avoid jail time because of a probation violation Ah yeah, they probably have no legal recourse then, and the original story is pretty misleading. quote:“When you think Christian, you automatically think good,” said Ms. Spivey, who goes by the name Cheri. As a side note, it's pretty interesting to me how this person's world view assumes everyone equates "christian" with "good" where mine pretty much equates it with "bad" because it's been an entirely negative influence on my life as a queer growing up in the south who's now in a long-term relationship with a trans partner who grew up in a highly conservative catholic family. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand though I just thought it was interesting personally  EDIT: To clarify I don't mean to inject that last part as a "lol christians r dum /r/atheism forever" kinda thing, I meant more that I presume she knew her son was gay and she lives in Florida same as me and it's not like christianity here isn't pretty constantly hostile to the gay agenda. EDIT2: wait it sounds like she's in Knoxville, which I have no personal experience with but I always assumed was more south-like than Florida. Shame Boy fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:34 |
|
|
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
|
|