Quake3World

Nightshade wrote:I think that's beside the point. The most important issue here, IMO, is that laws catering to a religious minority should NEVER be enacted in a free and democratic society.

Not a specific US-bash, but you know that according to your constitutional rights, it's OK for parents to abuse their children because their beliefs tell them not to use modern medicine. In pretty much all cases of child death due to this sort of parental neglect, the rights of the parents to be fruitloops are upheld on the basis that their beliefs are rooted in a religion.

Geebs wrote: Not a specific US-bash, but you know that according to your constitutional rights, it's OK for parents to abuse their children because their beliefs tell them not to use modern medicine. In pretty much all cases of child death due to this sort of parental neglect, the rights of the parents to be fruitloops are upheld on the basis that their beliefs are rooted in a religion.

there is similar rights in canada but they are routinely overridden by courts when a child's life is in danger. i would be surprised if it's not the same in the US?

It's not. Written constitutions can be bad for your health.

Geebs wrote:Be grateful for that dead fat king, because of him we didn't get the Spanish Inquisition utterly destroying original thought in this country

even if your sweeping statement were true, i'd find it hard to be grateful to someone for an accidental consequence of their action that they never intended nor could ever have foreseen

Geebs wrote:Written constitutions can be bad for your health.

uh, no. that's like saying freedom can be bad for your health, with the accompanying untrue implication that unfreedom can't

seremtan wrote:

Geebs wrote:Be grateful for that dead fat king, because of him we didn't get the Spanish Inquisition utterly destroying original thought in this country

even if your sweeping statement were true, i'd find it hard to be grateful to someone for an accidental consequence of their action that they never intended nor could ever have foreseen

Geebs wrote:Written constitutions can be bad for your health.

uh, no

Read the literature on this one and then come back to me.

spoken like a doctor

also, read the edit

It was an aphorism. I'm still right.

Freedom can be bad for your health. I've had a patient threaten to inject himself with and air bubble purely to spite me, and he then actually tried to do it. Fortunately, he'd already cut up his inner arms so badly he couldn't find a vein, and was making such a bad job of it that when the cops showed up, they just took him home . Also fortunately, I had the psych's report on him from the day before declaring him sane...

Doesn't mean I don't think that lack of freedom is a good thing either.

Geebs wrote:

Nightshade wrote:I think that's beside the point. The most important issue here, IMO, is that laws catering to a religious minority should NEVER be enacted in a free and democratic society.

Not a specific US-bash, but you know that according to your constitutional rights, it's OK for parents to abuse their children because their beliefs tell them not to use modern medicine. In pretty much all cases of child death due to this sort of parental neglect, the rights of the parents to be fruitloops are upheld on the basis that their beliefs are rooted in a religion.

I fail to see how this relates to not passing laws that cater to religious minorities. If anything, this is a case for passing laws that aforementioned wackjobs DON'T have legal protections to harm others, even if through inaction.
I've heard of plenty of these cases, just another example of exasperatingly stupid people that shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Geebs wrote:It was an aphorism. I'm still right.

Freedom can be bad for your health. I've had a patient threaten to inject himself with and air bubble purely to spite me, and he then actually tried to do it. Fortunately, he'd already cut up his inner arms so badly he couldn't find a vein, and was making such a bad job of it that when the cops showed up, they just took him home . Also fortunately, I had the psych's report on him from the day before declaring him sane...

Doesn't mean I don't think that lack of freedom is a good thing either.

so there are stupid people in the world. everyone knows this unless they're one of them

and no, you're not right. if you could provide convincing evidence that there was some kind of correlation between increasing freedom and increasing health hazards, that would be a start (though you'd still have to demonstrate causation), but we both know you can't, because there isn't one. in fact, i'd argue that any causation is likely to go the other way, since in an unfree society feedback from below is discouraged, hence it's harder to deal with - for example - health risks associated with the industrial environment (ask anyone who used to live in a communist country) since working in relatively safety is a worker rights issue, and hence seen as unacceptably political by authorities

seremtan wrote:and no, you're not right. if you could provide convincing evidence that there was some kind of correlation between increasing freedom and increasing health hazards, that would be a start (though you'd still have to demonstrate causation), but we both know you can't, because there isn't one. in fact, i'd argue that any causation is likely to go the other way, since in an unfree society feedback from below is discouraged, hence it's harder to deal with - for example - health risks associated with the industrial environment (ask anyone who used to live in a communist country) since working in relatively safety is a worker rights issue, and hence seen as unacceptably political by authorities

Fine, give your kid the freedom to play in the street.

edit: n/m