Thomas Paul: In the US, a doctor could be prosecuted if his negligence is so serious as to be criminal. This does not mean that doctors can be prosecuted for making mistakes. A doctor who kills a patient by giving them too much medication by accident would not be prosecuted for a crime. A doctor who gave too much medication because he was drunk would likely be prosecuted.
Originally posted by Richard Hawkes: Maybe they should treat medical negligence as a criminal matter rather than a civil matter. The doctor should get punished by jail time and struck off (maiming, endangering life). Its incredibly hard to get struck off the medical register apparently - in the UK anyway - because it is self-governing profession.
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
No. Rape and statutory rape are different. They have different terms. This is argument by obfuscation.
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
I'll note one thing: you went WAY out of your way to take my quotes out of context to justify your position that I am moralizing. I'm glad it was that much work.
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
This clearly states to me that Eugene accepts pedophilia.
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
It's awry.
Joe
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
DR: I think we could go around in circles for ever over semantics here
Nope. You can, because you won't address the point. Either rape is always wrong or it isn't. If it is always wrong, it is an absolute Wrong.
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
It's easier for me to address an issue if you ask a question.
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Are you saying that declaring that rape is wrong will automatically lead to fundamentalism?
Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
I heard no end of ludicrously stretched examples of where cannibalism, for example, could be acceptable. Crapola. Even if it was necessary, it was not acceptable
Originally posted by Joue Pluta:
Stay away from my family. Really, I mean that.
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
You missed the key word "balance". The group you describe seemed to consist of too many frothing at the mouth absolutists.
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Absolutism, in its clear cut black/white distinctions, is able to communicate its message very emotionally/effectively; in times of crises especially.
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
So, are you denying any correlation at all between strong emotions on particular issues and an absolutist view of those issues?
Or are you denying any correlation between action...?
JP:
Otherwise rape is not acceptable; this becomes an absolute Wrong, by fiat if not by definition
Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
It's just as arrogant -- in the denotative sense of the term -- to presume there are no absolutes as to presume there are -- we can't know them. We can and do try to infer them, but ultimately it is human, social consensus that acts as the arbiter. All our asserted moral rights and wrongs may in fact map back to an objective state. But it's a happy coincidence at best. We can't know God, we can only believe.
So those of you who have been disagreeing with Joe on this point, my apologies, but you've been wrong all this time.