Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 810 811 [812] 813 814 ... 852

Author Topic: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread  (Read 870664 times)

Criptfeind

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12165 on: February 23, 2012, 03:19:28 pm »

I'm not pretending anything. I'm just stating that the line for what is human is not drawn in stone. Also when potential is fulfilled then it actually is.
Logged

GlyphGryph

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12166 on: February 23, 2012, 03:21:41 pm »

Personally, I think its this:

As a bystander, you are not responsible, legally, if someone dies. However, if your JOB is, say, as a medical first responder, and you arrive at the scene and decide NOT to save the persons life, then you ARE legally responsible.

Basically, it could be argued - by giving birth to a baby and not giving it up for adoption, parents are accepting full responsibility for the babies well being. At this point, they have made a choice, and as a society it is beneficial to all of us if those who have made that choice be legally obligated to carry through on their responsibilities.

UNTIL that point, however, things are up in the air. Someone who has JUST found out they are pregnant has made no choice to accept responsibility for another human being, they have simply received their first message that a human being is probably going to happen.
Logged

G-Flex

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12167 on: February 23, 2012, 03:24:06 pm »

UNTIL that point, however, things are up in the air. Someone who has JUST found out they are pregnant has made no choice to accept responsibility for another human being, they have simply received their first message that a human being is probably going to happen.

Couldn't it be said that, in this case, not getting an early abortion is ethically equivalent to your example of not giving up a child for adoption? Granted, this assumes both of these things are available to the person at the time.
Logged
There are 2 types of people in the world: Those who understand hexadecimal, and those who don't.
Visit the #Bay12Games IRC channel on NewNet
== Human Renovation: My Deus Ex mod/fan patch (v1.30, updated 5/31/2012) ==

GlyphGryph

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12168 on: February 23, 2012, 03:30:11 pm »

I actually do believe that the earlier you make your decision after finding out, the more ethically in the clear you are.

However, you can abdicate your responsibility for a child, legally, at any time, by giving them up for adoption. Abortion is basically the prenatal equivalent we have available.
Logged

NinjaBoot

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12169 on: February 23, 2012, 03:40:40 pm »

I actually do believe that the earlier you make your decision after finding out, the more ethically in the clear you are.

And when is that?  Give an exact time-frame. 

There is no being "ethically in the clear" when you play with fire and get burned. 
Logged

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12170 on: February 23, 2012, 03:41:07 pm »

You were talking about "potential" being "increased"

Yes? From basically nothing to a whole lot. Like, the potential to be a human goes from <1% to 100%.

I'm... not even sure what you mean now. Increased potential is not the same as actually being something. Please stop pretending these are the same concepts.

Miscarriages happen all the time, at various stages of the pregnancy. Fact of the matter is, both mother and child can very easily die at any time of pregnancy. Historically, it wasn't uncommon for women to die in childbirth. Same thing for the baby. No, people do not understand miscarriages.... Trust me, I am the gay friend whose damp shoulder has been cried upon many a times for this. People just don't talk about it.

I'm aware that miscarriages can happen at any time, and no, I'm not going to "trust you" based on any anecdotal evidence. I don't care whose gay friend (whatever that's supposed to imply) you are. If you want to talk about miscarriage statistics, then give me miscarriage statistics.

Quote
Second, "Telling the difference:" Between a miscarriage and a negligent infanticide.

When I said "negligent infanticide" I was talking about actual born children; most of your post here is acting otherwise, so I apologize for being unclear. I am definitely not suggesting anything regarding the prosecution of fetal "infanticide", which I agree is a pretty sticky issue especially when considering culpability.

I was making the point that if a human life being dependent upon the parent does not cause the parent to be obligated to make sure it doesn't die, why is killing a born child through negligence illegal? I just don't buy the idea that (risk to the mother aside, as that's another important consideration) even if a fetus is considered legally a human child, that the mother has no obligation to take care of it, because we very clearly expect parents to take care of their born children. This isn't to say that I agree that a fetus is a human child; that's another argument entirely.
Quote
"I'm aware that miscarriages can happen at any time, and no, I'm not going to "trust you" based on any anecdotal evidence. I don't care whose gay friend (whatever that's supposed to imply) you are. If you want to talk about miscarriage statistics, then give me miscarriage statistics."
http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm

You really don't have to be like that you know.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

And, that's exactly the problem I'm talking about. It's a very emotional issue and people get those tied up in it. People's feelings cloud their judgment. They get pissed off that some kid died and rather than feel sorry for the mother, they often get pissed at her and blame her....

As for the "any anecdotal evidence," chill out man. A lot of what I and other lawyers say is "anecdotal," and that doesn't diminish from it one bit. It's from practical professional/personal experience, and they often blend together. I do not perform "experiments." I listen to people in a confidential setting where they feel it is OK to tell me the truth. I have heard a ton of women talk about their miscarriages to me. The only thing my being gay or an attorney has to do with this is that those are characteristics making it more likely for women to trust me as either their close friend or as a person with whom they have a legal confidential relationship.

The fact that I didn't construct a sample with a control group, do up the variances/standard deviations, functional forms, work the math for a confidence variable and a statistical significance P level of .05 or above while checking for Heteroskedasticity with a white test, as well as gamma distribution of the sample with means and modes doens't mean shit.

Fact of the matter is, most stats I've seen done are flawed and I used to make it a hobby of picking them apart, especially in psychology where the only functional form they taught was linear.

Anecdotal evidence, in the right circumstances can be incredibly enlightening and people are foolish to ignore it. Trials are based entirely upon Anecdotal evidence. No experiment is done or even possible in any of the trials I've done. They aren't gonna call in a team of statisticians to determine if my client stole something.

That said you should be CAREFUL of it, yes. Entirely dismissive solely on the basis that there isn't an experiment for it? [shrugs] I dunno.

Quote
I was making the point that if a human life being dependent upon the parent does not cause the parent to be obligated to make sure it doesn't die,

O, between a live parent and child, yes. We were talking about abortion, but that's cool.

What I was saying is that ordinarily two people have no duty to keep each other alive. This is true absent special circumstances/special relationships. The parent child one should only apply after the kid is born. My point was that miscarriages are too easily confused for "negligent (prenatal) infanticides."
« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 03:48:22 pm by Truean »
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

GlyphGryph

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12171 on: February 23, 2012, 03:45:03 pm »

I actually do believe that the earlier you make your decision after finding out, the more ethically in the clear you are.
And when is that?  Give an exact time-frame.
There is no being "ethically in the clear" when you play with fire and get burned. 
... what?

I clearly used a gradient term there (earlier::more ethical), expressly denying your ridiculous attempt to impose strict cutoffs on a situation with obviously unclear boundaries.

If I were to say "I find the sooner you return a found wallet, the more ethical the returning becomes, such that holding onto it for six months before returning it is pretty wrong and bordering on stealing", would you immediately start demanding information on strict cutoffs? I doubt it. Do you really have some inherent problem with the statement "the sooner the better, ethically", or are you just trying to pull some weird bullshit I can't figure out.
Logged

G-Flex

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12172 on: February 23, 2012, 03:48:06 pm »

You really don't have to be like that you know.

Be like what? I'm just saying, resorting to "trust me because I have personal experience" isn't a very good argument.

At any rate, it's pretty moot because I wasn't (in that case) talking about the deaths of the unborn anyway.

Quote
As for the "any anecdotal evidence," chill out man. A lot of what I and other lawyers say is "anecdotal," and that doesn't diminish from it one bit. It's from practical professional/personal experience, and they often blend together. I do not perform "experiments." I listen to people in a confidential setting where they feel it is OK to tell me the truth. I have heard a ton of women talk about their miscarriages to me. The only thing my being gay or an attorney has to do with this is that those are characteristics making it more likely for women to trust me as either their close friend or as a person with whom they have a legal confidential relationship.

I'm just saying that what you have to say regarding your own personal experiences is not necessarily statistically representative of anything, and that's assuming I trust it to begin with, which I shouldn't because 1) I don't know you, and 2) It's unverifiable.

Please don't be so terribly offended that I'm not going to implicitly absolutely trust an internet stranger to be telling an objective, complete, and unbiased account of their own personal experiences, or that those experiences are statistically relevant.

Quote
Anecdotal evidence, in the right circumstances can be incredibly enlightening and people are foolish to ignore it. Trials are based entirely upon Anecdotal evidence. No experiment is done or even possible in any of the trials I've done. They aren't gonna call in a team of statisticians to determine to determine if my client stole something.

... I never even suggested anything contrary to this. Lighten up, for Christ's sake. I'm just saying that if we're going to talk about miscarriage statistics, it would be irresponsible of me to be convinced of them based on potentially false or biased accounts of personal experiences from someone I don't even know, especially since it's the kind of thing where more reliable statistics are likely to be available, as you've shown they are.
Logged
There are 2 types of people in the world: Those who understand hexadecimal, and those who don't.
Visit the #Bay12Games IRC channel on NewNet
== Human Renovation: My Deus Ex mod/fan patch (v1.30, updated 5/31/2012) ==

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12173 on: February 23, 2012, 04:17:05 pm »

You really don't have to be like that you know.

Be like what? I'm just saying, resorting to "trust me because I have personal experience" isn't a very good argument.

At any rate, it's pretty moot because I wasn't (in that case) talking about the deaths of the unborn anyway.

Quote
As for the "any anecdotal evidence," chill out man. A lot of what I and other lawyers say is "anecdotal," and that doesn't diminish from it one bit. It's from practical professional/personal experience, and they often blend together. I do not perform "experiments." I listen to people in a confidential setting where they feel it is OK to tell me the truth. I have heard a ton of women talk about their miscarriages to me. The only thing my being gay or an attorney has to do with this is that those are characteristics making it more likely for women to trust me as either their close friend or as a person with whom they have a legal confidential relationship.

I'm just saying that what you have to say regarding your own personal experiences is not necessarily statistically representative of anything, and that's assuming I trust it to begin with, which I shouldn't because 1) I don't know you, and 2) It's unverifiable.

Please don't be so terribly offended that I'm not going to implicitly absolutely trust an internet stranger to be telling an objective, complete, and unbiased account of their own personal experiences, or that those experiences are statistically relevant.

Quote
Anecdotal evidence, in the right circumstances can be incredibly enlightening and people are foolish to ignore it. Trials are based entirely upon Anecdotal evidence. No experiment is done or even possible in any of the trials I've done. They aren't gonna call in a team of statisticians to determine to determine if my client stole something.

... I never even suggested anything contrary to this. Lighten up, for Christ's sake. I'm just saying that if we're going to talk about miscarriage statistics, it would be irresponsible of me to be convinced of them based on potentially false or biased accounts of personal experiences from someone I don't even know, especially since it's the kind of thing where more reliable statistics are likely to be available, as you've shown they are.

The funny thing about text is, it doesn't convey emotion most of the time, and some of us assume the worst. I'm just firing these things off between reading cases in a semi-stoic, fast but not hurried manner. Not upset at all. Passionate/persuasive is a default for me. I'm not the least bit riled. That's exactly how I would talk to you in a judge's chambers. I get stuff said against my point of view all day, and I counter it all day. They then counter that counter, and so on. Not a big deal so far as I'm concerned.

You're right to not trust anecdotal evidence on a per se basis, due to its difficulty of verification, etc, but not all the time. I don't have time to write a scholarly level paper to prove all the points I need to make all the time, so I'm not "resorting" to things, but that doesn't really matter. If you want to be skeptical on that basis then fine.

I just thought it was funny: the point I was making and how this ended up.

My point was that people didn't understand miscarriage and don't look into it, even and especially before they make laws convicting people of crimes based upon it. How sad that we are imposing criminal liability on people for something they may not be able to control.

Hell, I'm considering adding roleplaying hash tags to the things I type so people get how I'm just sorta sitting here calm as can be most of the time, or sarcastic as hell, only saying the things I do in a non threatening way. :P If I somehow sent you on the defensive, that wasn't really my intention, of that much you can be sure.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 04:19:11 pm by Truean »
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

DJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12174 on: February 23, 2012, 04:24:57 pm »

OK, hang on a second here guys. This isn't really on topic, but you guys keep saying there's no obligation to help another person. Isn't there a legal duty to rescue people in distress if it wouldn't put you in danger?
Logged
Urist, President has immigrated to your fortress!
Urist, President mandates the Dwarven Bill of Rights.

Cue magma.
Ah, the Magma Carta...

MetalSlimeHunt

  • Bay Watcher
  • Gerrymander Commander
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12175 on: February 23, 2012, 04:25:56 pm »

That would depend on the area of the planet we are discussing.
Logged
Quote from: Thomas Paine
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.
Quote
No Gods, No Masters.

DJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12176 on: February 23, 2012, 04:30:55 pm »

Oh damn, Wiki tells me that it doesn't exist in USA. You guys really *are* barbarians :o
Logged
Urist, President has immigrated to your fortress!
Urist, President mandates the Dwarven Bill of Rights.

Cue magma.
Ah, the Magma Carta...

Truean

  • Bay Watcher
  • Ok.... [sigh] It froze over....
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12177 on: February 23, 2012, 04:31:05 pm »

That would depend on the area of the planet we are discussing.

Yes, it depends on the jurisdiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misfeasance

It really does depend upon what country you are in. It even depends upon what state you are in, but in US common law, the default is you don't have that duty absent some special relationship or a good samaritan statute. Also, if you start helping and then leave you might be liable on the theory that you've warned off others who could help because they think you've got things handled.
Logged
The kinda human wreckage that you love

Current Spare Time Fiction Project: (C) 2010 http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=63660.0
Disclaimer: I never take cases online for ethical reasons. If you require an attorney; you need to find one licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. Never take anything online as legal advice, because each case is different and one size does not fit all. Wants nothing at all to do with law.

Please don't quote me.

Frumple

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Prettiest Kyuuki
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12178 on: February 23, 2012, 04:32:26 pm »

And gods help you if you try to help and bork something up.

Well, gods or a lawyer :-\
Logged
Ask not!
What your country can hump for you.
Ask!
What you can hump for your country.

Tellemurius

  • Bay Watcher
  • Positively insane Tech Thaumaturgist
    • View Profile
Re: Chill and Relaxed Progressive Irritation and Annoyance Thread
« Reply #12179 on: February 23, 2012, 04:33:05 pm »

Oh damn, Wiki tells me that it doesn't exist in USA. You guys really *are* barbarians :o
Problem is we don't get legal protection if we do assist and we can get sued for assault.
Pages: 1 ... 810 811 [812] 813 814 ... 852