rehmwa

yet I answered both of them, anyway doctor is under the legal and professional obligations of a doctor when acting officially as a doctor if not, he's a citizen like any other (thus, under criminal law, they should be equal. civil suits, etc that can handle the subjectivities you talk about) But, even there - If your group of 10 friends comes over and helps you build your deck you designed yourself. and the deck falls over next year killing the neighbor visiting for a Bar BQ, ----civil - does his family ignore the 9 business majors and sue the 1 engineer from the group? I guess a dickhead would. ----criminal - if somehow one of the helpers goes to jail for criminal negligence, they ALL should be treated the same, (as the owner, you already are in the shit) maybe the disconnect here is civil vs criminal??? I don't believe in putting people in higher and lower classes. I don't believe in unequal treatment under the law. we've grown out of that. Happy to 'agree to disagree' on that. Anyway, these are interesting discussions and I find I'm refining my opinions as a result - thanks ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

What do you mean by 'married' 1 - just the ceremony or act of becoming partners? (I don't care one bit about that at all) 2 - the government set of benefits that we all have to pay for or support as a matter of law that's been attached to #1 (this is the only thing really that people should worry about) as for #2: the solution is easy - If the government wants to meddle in people's lives and give benefits that accrue to child bearing relationships......(which I also think is none of their business).... they should skip the middle step (social manipulation) of giving benefits to couples that may or may not produce children, and only give those benefits to couples that ACTUALLY HAVE PRODUCED CHILDREN. You want kids in society, then the money follows the kids, not the parents (or the schools, etc etc etc). This is the problem with how idiots approach social agendas - they do things by inference, rather than reality. (i.e., if we fiddle with A, then maybe via things that will then happen to B, C and D, maybe our problem with E might be fixed - in the meantime BCD get rich or screwed. I'm a bigger fan of just going after E directly. You want these benefits? too bad, just getting married won't do it, you actually have to procreate first) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

First - that's a COMPLETELY different scenario that the one you quoted, isn't it? actually, yes I would if the first aid was provided as an ad hoc type of thing If the doctor is hired directly to perform medical services,,,,,then that's conducting medical practice, not just being a bystander giving aid. So that's a different thing there. (if the scenario is an odd ball one where both INTENTIONALLY did shoddy work in an attempt to damage me, then still, I'd want both to be punished - the only difference is the doctor should lose his license to practice medicine in addition to the same punishments, but if the bystander had med license, I'd want him to lose it also) Do you want to ensure that doctors avoid helping in emergencies since they can leave it to bystanders to do the same without threat of litigation? "OH MY GOD - that guy just got hit by a car. Hurry, is there a mailman in the house?" anyway - my other analogy was more applicable. Try again - a doctor walks up and sticks a knife in you just to 'see the light go out in a stranger's eyes". Now an accountant walks up and sticks a knife in you just to 'see the light go out in a stranger's eyes". Why do you think the doctor should go to jail for more years than the accountant? and my base intention is to differentiate between judging an individual based on their specific actions, rather than judging them based on a subjective set of expectations that others place on them. The second is akin to having different punishments for other subjective things, skin color, nationality, gender, etc etc etc - it really leads to unequal treatment under the law. And that stinks. Or even worse - maybe punish someone unequally because the victim was a dad or something unrelated..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Look above in the thread and this follows - I'd say, I don't care as long as people get to decide for themselves and don't tell me what to think or do for myself (or others for that matter) - it seems some are ok with that - others want me to care one very sternly in way or the other or I'm not evolved enough (or devolved enough depending on whether my stern opinion agrees or disagrees with them) meh ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

this is not inconsistent - if a judge wants to max out a sentence for someone that did it while in control vs someone that 'lost it'. He can do that. The fact that the criminal is "in control" could be for any reason as I said - I 'expect' better and more controlled behavior from someone that has training of any kind. But I don't think unequal punishment for the same act is fair at all. A cop kills someone in the theater for texting, or a punk, or a soccer mom, kills someone in the theater for texting. EXACT SAME CRIME. The fact that I'm surprised that a cop could get through all that training and then he still violated my expectations of someone like that is interesting, but we punish the cop based on his actions, not my outrage. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

why don't you read my post again and get it right a cop kills someone illegally, he should be punished under the law just like anyone else how do you misconstrue wanting people to be punished equally as giving this specific individual a "pass" I'll never know apparently it's inexcusable for a cop, but perfectly excusable for anyone else? I think murder is inexcusable regardless. seems to me you want to give random punks a pass that's an odd one. If a layman botches a surgery on me, he'll be guilty of kidnapping, assault, illegally practicing medicine and an entire host of other laws - vs a surgeon that is hired. I guess I agree that if I contract a bricklayer or a high school teacher to take out my appendix and he botches it up, I can't sue him for malpractice. You win one there. do you frequently let laymen conduct your operations? What I think is the appropriate analogy is this? If some punk attacks me in an alley with a knife and cuts me, vs a surgeon attacks me in an alley with a knife and cuts me. I guess you'd think the surgeon should be charged with a 'special' class of assault and battery since he has better knowledge of where to cut me? (despite you having no idea if the punk has special forces training, has read books on anatomy, or even watches a lot of Steve Segall movies) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Nobody is harmed by driving through a red light. There is already a law against hitting somebody else with your car. Clearly most traffic laws can be scrapped. Nobody being harmed by me driving 200mph Nobody being harmed by me not having my headlights on at night Etc etc. The thought is wonderfully utopian though. Yeah - instead of accepting each other as being different, we need to do whatever it takes to force people to think the same... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I 'beeleeve' that the more colorful people talk about their beleifs, the more ridiculous their beleaf structure must be. (i.e., if you have to dress it up, then the truth of it must be irrational - for that individual. For religion, the most convincing believer is the one that is quietly confident in it and who can speak plainly about it when he has to.) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

WHAT? Crazy talk. You mean people are "allowed" to have different opinions on subjects and we don't worry about it unless they act to force it on others? Now you're clearly nuts. How am I supposed to make people think like me? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Agreed - and I find that aspect of human nature to be distressing. I makes people focus on the wrong things the nature/classification of the victim is meaningless. the problem problem lies with the aggressor. And the aggressor has no idea why the other guy is texting. non factor aside to your comment - I 'expect' better behavior from the guy with training. But, I would want us to punish him for a transgression exactly the same as someone without the training that did the exact same thing. So, I don't consider that 'holding' him to a higher standard - which, to me, implies how we respond to failures, in addition to our expectations. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I find it disturbing that people are making a deal of the point that it was a Dad texting his daughter. This is completely a non factor is so many ways other than just to generate an emotional reaction. It would be just as wrong to shoot someone texting anybody for any reason. (acknowledging the smarty pants people here - excepting silly scenarios like the shooter knew it was someone texting an activation code for a bomb, etc....) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

poppycock - the debate is OVER!!!! - now that everybody knows what to do - instead of letting them go to the store and start buying sanitizer of just ANY kind, I want them to buy it ONLY from me. Did you read the editorial in the paper? I have the solution. Oh, and why not just pass the other law.....the Magic Elixer (TM) is good stuff. We should just do it - worst case is people will have shinier hair - and it's only $100......a month......for the next century.....per person. It might help this flu thingy, but NOT buying it is guaranteed to not help. Why take a chance? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

absolutely not. GW true or not, that's just how the power hungry are trying to exploit the debate. Frankly, they are hurting your position as a result. analogy (have fun with it) - A wave of the flu is running through the town. Doctors are trying to get the mayor to institute a "clean hands and sanitizer at all public buildings" law through. However, the local snake oil salesman is also trying to get a law through to make everyone purchase his Magic Medicine (at 10 times the original price). By the way - the shyster's best 3 friends absolutely insist that it "works for me" - one of them owns the local paper too. I suspect the citizenry would be skeptical of any of the proposals good or bad. Especially because the Shyster is the Mayor's brother. And the Sanitizer company was started by the Mayor's wife. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I disagree. Acceptance is an action that's requires just existing. Trying to control "how" people get to acceptance is counterproductive and ignores that people are different in how they process things. an aside - Also, if a human is being mistreated, the problem is the abuser, making the focus on the innocent is just not attacking the real problem. (example: bullying is wrong, the problem is the bully, the problem is not whether he's picking on smaller boys, nerds, a gay kid, sick kids, shy kids, or otherwise - the status of the victim is NOT the issue. Your approach is not problem focused, is a social statement that leaves out other innocents. Take away the desire for that jerk to attack one group, and he just moves to another group.) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

HERE - good answer instead of spending a load of time trying to rationalize positions (either way) with 'why', we'd all be better off just saying, "it doesn't matter, it just is", and accepting each other without being assholes or over the top, etc etc etc. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Kelpy nails it right here. And this is by NO MEANS just a Christian thing. Frankly, I don't like anyone so self righteous that they use the government to force certain types of subjective decisions on me. Even something as innocuous as what kind of light bulb I wish to purchase - to how much charity I'm supposed to funnel through government instead of privately - to whether my partner and I were to decide to have a baby or not. Leave us alone - I can make my own choices thank you. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

texting doesn't even make any noise. you can even silence the notification of incoming texts. agree that previews are not an issue at all "No problem, I'll be sure to shut it off for the movie" if it was at the previews and the shooter is a grumpy asshole, I could see it play out (I could also see it play out if the texter was an asshole.....or both) no one deserves to shot for something like this - movie or not ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Interesting I read it as: Those who have vocally defended Obama are self-reporting on a website that it is working for them. Those who have vocally opposed Obama are self-reporting on a website that it is not working for them. I don't see a big surprise here, but I also doubt any of it is based on reality. Yeah, I see that, there's a question of whether the support/opposition is cause vs effect (likely bits of both). I also think we can see how our comments link as well. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

actually, Andy made a key point "being" which is a bit circular in how he would categorize it, doesn't equal the full population of "living the lifestyle" or just claiming to be it's a fair distinction to keep in mind what assumptions people are bringing into the discussion and how that will derail when people talk from different starting points. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Does using the term "marriage" to describe a union automatically include people in your church community and give you jurisdiction to intervene? the idea that a group has a moral imperative to intervene in the personal lives of individuals is a bit socialistic and overbearing IMO. It's my main issue with the left, and the far right. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

What do you think the split out is? if you had 100 gay people, and had the magic ability to know why each of them are that way - you'd have 100 reasons. I wonder if you could roughly categorize the reasons what would be the split out: 1 - healthy, no choice, it's just that way 2 - chose on purpose, likes it, works for them 3 - didn't really care either way, but this works for them 4 - bad choice due to trauma or mental issues 5 - isn't really, but wants to be because they get more jobs in hollywood (just kidding) (now before jumping all over me, I can come up with a similar list for straight people and the partnering situations they find themselves in - the key point is people are individuals and everyone has their own background. What irks me is the rote identification - one side just says "Shut up, 100% are #1", the other side says "Shut up, 100% are #4". The oversimplification irks me, as these are people.) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

stop that - people aren't individuals with their own reasons and backgrounds and lives. they are all the same and should be put into buckets of pre-conceived notions. You must pick one side and one side only and defend it to the death. This is Speaker's Corner. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

I know that, I just thought if he meant that and really thinks nobody in Yemen or Russia can be happy that is even more ignorant than thinking being gay is a choice... The whole law part wouldn't make sense either... seriously, you made an honest mistake based on not understanding the original meaning of a word that's not your native language, so totally understandable, and knee jerked to a crappy assumption about a reasonable poster here. Then one of the more PC, but also reasonable, members explains it nicely and politely to you. your reaction - scramble and try to make it look like you did it on purpose with an even more direct insult to the original commenter classy as hell ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

So no one comments on the one part. "I have a problem with politicians manipulating that ethos to divert billions of taxpayer dollars to their cronies who kick back funds into their own coffers. " ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

that's an odd take on it. I read it as (there is a rough tendency that) people voted for their own personal self interests and the results are aligned. how about that, self interests are driving (voting) behavior rather than some idealized falsehood of people trying to be all community minded or benevolent or anything else? IMHO - if legislation results like this become more and more drawn across demographic dividing lines, rather than for the general good, we can start to be very clear that neither party has to overall welfare of the people in mind, just their members only at the expense of the other. But we all already know that. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants