America - The Official Thread

[Joey D]

Should you? Should I? Let's say random racist person sees someone having a stroke. If it were a white person, they'd call 911, but it's a black person, so they walk on. Should that be a crime?

We're not doctors though at a hospital though. If you or I or even a doctor not on duty walking down the street doesn't bother to call or help, this it's totally on them.

Once someone enters a hospital, which many are state funded, then I do think they should have to treat that person especially due to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Like I said they don't have to provide continuing care, but at the very least they need to stabilize the person.

You shouldn't end up dead because the only place that's available to get the life saving medication you need won't serve you because your biology made you gay. Like I said, elective stuff is completely different and if it's not life threatening, I have no problem with the discrimination even if I personally this it's a load of crap.

 

[TexRex]

What protections are there for emergency responders who risk an individual's well-being by avoiding establishments where there's a reasonal expectation the individual (let's say a transgendered individual with lacerations to the chest and inner thigh, thereby bringing attention to "mismatched"--that's a horrible description but a suitable alternative escapes me at this time--genitalia) will be refused care based on this lack of deterrence?

Should an individual's life not be saved due to increased travel time based on this decision, are emergency responders culpable? What about any doubt of the availability of care for an individual that should arise during emergency response?

I suppose everyone should align with whatever belief system affords them the best chances of receiving medical care, regardless of what they believe deep down.

This is why I have a problem with organized religion. I have nothing against whatever people choose to believe so long as others aren't negatively affected by those beliefs. Of course plenty do genuine, unconditional good based on their own beliefs, even if they're informed by another's, but they're genuinely good people.

 

[TexRex]

Let's say random racist person sees someone having a stroke. If it were a white person, they'd call 911, but it's a black person, so they walk on. Should that be a crime?

This isn't someone walking down the street, seeing a baby being dropped from a burning building, and choosing not to catch it. This is a baby being dropped from a burning building, down to someone in particular because they're wearing a sandwich board that reads "I catch babies dropped from burning buildings." A decision was made based on an expectation of intervention.

Edit: Yeah, double post.

Edit #2: Yes, it should be a crime, just as it should be for someone who abhors racism refusing to perform said action for said random racist (should the stroke have occurred in the middle of a hate-fuelled rant).

 

[Danoff]

We're not doctors though at a hospital though. If you or I or even a doctor not on duty walking down the street doesn't bother to call or help, this it's totally on them.

Once someone enters a hospital, which many are state funded, then I do think they should have to treat that person especially due to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Like I said they don't have to provide continuing care, but at the very least they need to stabilize the person.

You shouldn't end up dead because the only place that's available to get the life saving medication you need won't serve you because your biology made you gay. Like I said, elective stuff is completely different and if it's not life threatening, I have no problem with the discrimination even if I personally this it's a load of crap.

If your nearby ER can't require employees to treat everyone equally, that's a problem with law. If they don't, that's a little different. Maybe that ER shouldn't get used by... basically anyone. Maybe they shouldn't be legally allowed to call themselves an ER, if that name has a widely-accepted connotation. But to say that if one person performs medicine on someone else who needs it means that they have to perform it on someone they happen to consider a murder, that's a step too far.

This isn't someone walking down the street, seeing a baby being dropped from a burning building, and choosing not to catch it. This is a baby being dropped from a burning building, down to someone in particular because they're wearing a sandwich board that reads "I catch babies dropped from burning buildings." A decision was made based on an expectation of intervention.

Edit: Yeah, double post.

Edit #2: Yes, it should be a crime, just as it should be for someone who abhors racism refusing to perform said action for said random racist (should the stroke have occurred in the middle of a hate-fuelled rant).

Then it should be a crime for you to not send money to people starving in Africa right now... or maybe just leave your job and go there to help them.

 

[TexRex]

Then it should be a crime for you to not send money to people starving in Africa right now... or maybe just leave your job and go there to help them.

Right, because inaction when one is presented with a situation is the same as one not seeking out said situation.

 

[Danoff]

Right, because inaction when one is presented with a situation is the same as one not seeking out said situation.

You are presented with that situation right now. You could help people in Africa who are dying. You are choosing not to.

 

[TexRex]

You are presented with that situation right now. You could help people in Africa who are dying. You are choosing not to.

That is a situation that exists, not that lay before me.

 

[Dennisch]

Then it should be a crime for you to not send money to people starving in Africa right now... or maybe just leave your job and go there to help them.

Would moral objections be held to the same standard as religous ones?

 

[Exorcet]

That is a situation that exists, not that lay before me.

There isn't a lot of difference. One situation is closer than the other, and I would say that proximity can be a good way to decide on priorities, but it seems inconsistent to say that people in need should be given help yet you can choose to ignore people that are too far away.

 

[Danoff]

That is a situation that exists, not that lay before me.

At exactly what distance from you does the situation stop laying before you?

 

[TexRex]

it seems inconsistent to say that people in need should be given help yet you can choose to ignore people that are too far away.

General "people in need" were never cited. Falling babies? Yes. Black people having strokes? Uh huh.

At exactly what distance from you does the situation stop laying before you?

Let's start with close enough that the situation can be viewed with one's own eyes. Then subtract distance based on variables such as the ability to discern what said situation consists of, using one's eyes and ears. I can see a baby falling from a window above me and hear cries from a mother pleading for me to catch her baby. I can see a black person lose control of limbs on one side of their body and hear their slurred speach.

But let's take the hypothetical act of calling 9-1-1 to report someone having a stroke a little further. Approximately 1.5 strokes occur per minute (if one considers the 795,000 yearly occurrences Google cites and the 525,600 minutes transpired over the same period of time) in the US; is it not against the law to report this event despite assurances that it is indeed occurring?

I can be sure the scenario exists, but it does not lay before me.

Edit: Oh, I know, because not reporting a stroke happening somewhere isn't illegal, it shouldn't be illegal if it's happening before you. Right?

 

[Danoff]

Let's start with close enough that the situation can be viewed with one's own eyes. Then subtract distance based on variables such as the ability to discern what said situation consists of, using one's eyes and ears. I can see a baby falling from a window above me and hear cries from a mother pleading for me to catch her baby. I can see a black person lose control of limbs on one side of their body and hear their slurred speach.

But let's take the hypothetical act of calling 9-1-1 to report someone having a stroke a little further. Approximately 1.5 strokes occur per minute (if one considers the 795,000 yearly occurrences Google cites and the 525,600 minutes transpired over the same period of time) in the US; is it not against the law to report this event despite assurances that it is indeed occurring?

I can be sure the scenario exists, but it does not lay before me.

Edit: Oh, I know, because not reporting a stroke happening somewhere isn't illegal, it shouldn't be illegal if it's happening before you. Right?

Can you see an infomercial on your television with your own eyes? Can you see what the situation consists of? Learn the names of the people who need help? You can be (and have been I'm sure) easily presented with a very specific case of someone in need right before your very eyes. I'm guessing you changed the channel.

 

[TexRex]

Can you see an infomercial on your television with your own eyes? ... You can be (and have been I'm sure) easily presented with a very specific case of someone in need right before your very eyes.

Will throwing food at the TV help them? No? Why not? Could it be the TV is presenting me with depictions--however factual they may be--of events? I suppose I should help Batman stop The Riddler as well.

"Oh noes! Robin's in trouble!"

 

[Danoff]

Will throwing food at the TV help them? No? Why not? Could it be the TV is presenting me with depictions--however factual they may be--of events? I suppose I should help Batman stop The Riddler as well.

So you chose not to act to help them because you couldn't figure out how? Throwing food at the TV was the best idea you had? Or was it that you don't believe that it's real? I think it's something else. You didn't feel obligated.

 

[Exorcet]

General "people in need" were never cited. Falling babies? Yes. Black people having strokes? Uh huh.

In this case people in need would refer to falling babies, stroke victims, and anything of similar "worth" in terms of how bad they are. Just fill in anything you want. What has me thinking things over though is why distance (or effort) would matter. The latter part of your post is fine from a practical standpoint, but doesn't clearly lay out why you would need to act to save someone in one case and not another. Suppose you know that a child is falling from a building, but the event is out of sight. How you got this information doesn't really matter. Barring how you found out, you're in the exact same situation as if you had seen it happen.

 

[TexRex]

I think it's something else. You didn't feel obligated.

So now you're calling me callous. Isn't that a personal attack? Or if you prefer...

ad hominem

ad hominem

ad hominem

ad hominem ... ad hominem ... ad hominem.

Edit: I'd call remarks using the chosen equivalency "stupid," but that would be another ad hominem...so here's me not doing so. Inaction is okay, right?

 

[Joey D]

If your nearby ER can't require employees to treat everyone equally, that's a problem with law. If they don't, that's a little different. Maybe that ER shouldn't get used by... basically anyone. Maybe they shouldn't be legally allowed to call themselves an ER, if that name has a widely-accepted connotation. But to say that if one person performs medicine on someone else who needs it means that they have to perform it on someone they happen to consider a murder, that's a step too far.

But this law that's being proposed means they aren't legally required to treat everyone equally. That's my problem with it, but only when it comes to emergency medicine. For all other types of medicine, I believe you have the right to discriminate, but on the same token, I think that makes you a horrible medical professional for doing so. I'd also like to think any health system worth their salt would have a written policy that says you must treat anyone walking through the door if it's an emergency situation.

As for ER's not being used, there are choices in larger cities, however, in smaller areas, there isn't a choice. When I worked back in Michigan I'd go to some hospitals in the middle of nowhere. The next closest medical center could be upwards of 50 miles away. During an emergency situation, 50 miles is just too far to travel.

And I'm not so sure, it's not murder but it's definitely malpractice if you refuse to treat someone because they happen to be gay. I'm not sure how this law will protect those people who refuse to give life-saving service on moral grounds, but if it fully protects them then there's a chance a lawsuit would be thrown out.

 

[Danoff]

So now you're calling me callous. Isn't that a personal attack? Or if you prefer...

Nope. I said I'm guessing you didn't feel obliged. Why might that be? Could it be because you know that there is another case, and another one, and another one, and another one, and another one, and you know that you cannot save them all, and if you tried you'd be sacrificing your own life for their sake?

Each choice to help someone is a sacrifice of some part of your life. You choose to help the people you help, not out of moral obligation, but out of kindness and generosity, recognizing that you're sacrificing a little bit of yourself to do so.

That's why it's not moral to make it compulsory.

But this law that's being proposed means they aren't legally required to treat everyone equally. That's my problem with it, but only when it comes to emergency medicine. For all other types of medicine, I believe you have the right to discriminate, but on the same token, I think that makes you a horrible medical professional for doing so. I'd also like to think any health system worth their salt would have a written policy that says you must treat anyone walking through the door if it's an emergency situation.

I'm not sure it really even counts as what we think of as an ER if they wouldn't treat everyone. It'd be like a private ER, which... is not a very workable thing.

 

[Exorcet]

So now you're calling me callous. Isn't that a personal attack?

I don't think it's an attack at all. I think it describes why everyone chooses not to help in those situations where they can (which is basically every situation).

EDIT

For clarification, it's not that you're callous, but that you don't feel like you're in a position where you need to act for subjective reasons.

I'm not sure it really even counts as what we think of as an ER if they wouldn't treat everyone. It'd be like a private ER, which... is not a very workable thing.

Well I guess whatever bias such an ER would have would fall on a spectrum somehwere with regards to how many people are excluded. It would be pretty easy to ignore a small group of people if the majority decided to ignore what was going on. In the right society, and with the right people, there would probably be some form of stable and economically viable bias. I'd like to think the US wouldn't really be such a place though.

 

[Joey D]

I'm not sure it really even counts as what we think of as an ER if they wouldn't treat everyone. It'd be like a private ER, which... is not a very workable thing.

They do exist, although I'm not sure about the frequency of them. In Pontiac, Michigan where I grew up, we had a for-profit hospital owned by a group of doctors and they had an ER. I'm not sure how it worked, because we always refused to go there, but I'm guessing they could deny service to whomever they wanted too because it was a private entity.

There are plenty of private urgent cares as well, but I'd hope people who were having legitimate emergency medical issues wouldn't use them and instead go directly to the ER.

Like I said, past the emergency medicine thing, I can accept discrimination happening on whatever grounds you deem important. However, I assume like most people, I don't think it's right.

 

[TexRex]

Each choice to help someone is a sacrifice of some part of your life. You choose to help the people you help, not out of moral obligation, but out of kindness and generosity, recognizing that you're sacrificing a little bit of yourself to do so.

That's why it's not moral to make it compulsory.

Then I'm immoral, because I maintain that inaction in situations--particularly where an individual in need of assistance faces an imminent threat--should be punishable by rule of law.

However that comment comes with an important consideration: to what extent does action affect the acting?

I don't expect an individual to act under obligation as if by law when action represents significant danger to the acting, or when acting puts the individual(s) in need in further danger.

Sacrificing time, battery life, and possibly "minutes" (though I'm given to understand emergency calls are typically exempt from charges where service is provided and charged for on an as-used basis) should not be prohibitive in making the aforementioned 9-1-1 call.

My own "falling baby" hypothetical isn't perfect either--indeed hypotheticals rarely are--as action presents the threat of injury to the acting as well as alternative or additional injury to the hypothetical baby.

Whether action or inaction on the part of random individuals is or should be against the law is moot, though, because the topic is whether inaction due to religious beliefs on the part of those with a reasonable expectation to act should no longer be punishable by rule of law.

I have to wonder what religious beliefs would be covered under these guidelines.

If only a Muslim doctor is available when that dense column of McDonald's, KFC and Taco Bell stretching from anus to amygdala finally acts to end the "infidel" Donald J. Trump's life, would inaction on said Muslim doctor's part be protected?

Yeah, it's yet another hypothetical, but one can hope...

 

[Johnnypenso]

I viewed the classified report from House Intel relating to the FBI, FISA abuses, the infamous Russian dossier, and so-called "Russian collusion." What I saw is absolutely shocking. This report needs to be released--now. Americans deserve the truth.

He pointed to a four-page memo circulating in Congress that allegedly reveals FISA abuses within the Department of Justice and FBI, which has been described by lawmakers as “shocking,” “troubling” and “alarming.” "Our sources are telling us that the abuse of power is far bigger than Watergate," Hannity said. "Remember, Watergate was a third-rate break-in. What we're talking about tonight is the systematic abuse of power, the weaponizing of those powerful tools of intelligence and the shredding of our Fourth Amendment constitutional rights."..."This is far worse than Watergate. This is an abuse of surveillance and intelligence to win an election. It is a massive abuse of power, and it was all done by just a few people who think and thought they knew better than you about who should be the president of the United States," Hannity said. "It is the biggest national scandal by far in our lifetime."

Fox

 

[Imari]

Fox

It's interesting to look back nearly five years after Edward Snowden did his thing and notice that it really didn't change anything at all about the US intelligence and surveillance services. Not anything visible externally, anyway. I'm sure internally they cracked down hard, but they're still gathering information on US citizens based on secret permissions given out without oversight.

 

[homeforsummer]

It's interesting to look back nearly five years after Edward Snowden did his thing and notice that it really didn't change anything at all about the US intelligence and surveillance services. Not anything visible externally, anyway. I'm sure internally they cracked down hard, but they're still gathering information on US citizens based on secret permissions given out without oversight.

Everything is fleeting these days. Something else comes along to replace fear, uncertainty and doubt in people's minds, and the previous thing is forgotten about. Easy to forget you're being spied on when Trump is doing something daft in the news. Easy to forget the last daft thing Trump did or said when he does another the next day. Easy to forget you're outraged at Trump when Hollywood directors have been assaulting women. Easy to forget about Hollywood directors assaulting women when Trump's done something stupid again.

 

[Dotini]

Everything is fleeting these days. Something else comes along to replace fear, uncertainty and doubt in people's minds, and the previous thing is forgotten about. Easy to forget you're being spied on when Trump is doing something daft in the news. Easy to forget the last daft thing Trump did or said when he does another the next day. Easy to forget you're outraged at Trump when Hollywood directors have been assaulting women. Easy to forget about Hollywood directors assaulting women when Trump's done something stupid again.

Good observations. But of course, not everything is fleeting. Occasionally there are real-world acts and events which have more than temporary meaning and importance. That is why we should, amid all the daily fluster and bluster, occasionally sort the wheat from the chaff, noting and responding to the truly significant stories that come along. However, this is made difficult by our practice of prioritizing entertainment and commercial considerations across virtually all media platforms. Also there is the truism that most of us would prefer a beautiful or useful lie to an ugly truth.

 

[twitcher]

I been following the a few #s on twitter revolving around this....it looks ugly. A few days ago, Trump was filmed telling reporters "the storm is coming". And now, people who have read the memo are saying it makes Watetgate look like child's play.

I've seen some people say that the reason MSM ran with the #:censored:hole story so hard last week was because it was Friday of last week that the DOJ handed out 11 inditements regarding investigations into Uranium One, a project that saw 20% of America's enriched uranium sold to Russia, under the Obama administration. Not saying that couldn't be done legally, but what I've seen, it was done in a shady, non-legal way.

Interested to see how this one plays out.

One thing I did notice on twitter was a quite decent number of people, equal amounts of Dems and Rep, saying enough is enough, the people need to get DC under control. At the very least, I think that's a positive sign, as in my mind, there's no doubt there is massive amounts of curruption on both sides of the isle.

 

[Imari]

One thing I did notice on twitter was a quite decent number of people, equal amounts of Dems and Rep, saying enough is enough, the people need to get DC under control. At the very least, I think that's a positive sign, as in my mind, there's no doubt there is massive amounts of curruption on both sides of the isle.

It's interesting as well that Trump was seen as the candidate that would "clean up the swamp". While he may or may not be less corrupt than Hillary (and we'll probably never really know), I think at this point it seems pretty clear that if anything things are getting swampier. Swampiest. He makes the best swamps. Everyone says so.

The level of misinformation, misdirection and outright lies from leading government officials is pretty astounding, even if you hold a generally low opinion of politicians.

 

[homeforsummer]

Occasionally there are real-world acts and events which have more than temporary meaning and importance.

They should, but how often is that actually the case? Just look how quickly the post-hurricane humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico dropped off the front pages, how little people care about the VW emissions scandal any more (2017 was the company's highest-selling year ever), how little persistence any mass shooting or terror attack has in the news beyond an initial flash of sadness or outrage.

Some stories do slip through the net and persist if they're important enough - the spectre of Brexit is never far away from headlines in the UK, though mostly that's because every news story is like watching Sideshow Bob repeatedly stepping from one rake to another. But in general the population are just news junkies, waiting to get their next hit. One of last year's biggest stories was probably the Las Vegas shooting. I wonder how many people can honestly say they give much of a toss about what happened any more?

 

[TexRex]

I've seen some people say that the reason MSM ran with the #:censored:hole story so hard last week was because it was Friday of last week that the DOJ handed out 11 inditements regarding investigations into Uranium One

Isn't that the prerogative though? It's spin, and it can come from the proponents of individuals/groups just as it does from the individuals/groups themselves. "They're only doing this to hide that."

 

[Liquid]

How unusual is it to have a government shutdown when the government controls both houses?

I mean, part of me still finds it a bit weird that these things even happen in a country as powerful and prosperous as the United States. There have been eight federal government shutdowns since 1980; 1980, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1990, 1995, 1995/1996 and 2013.