Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
You can post with the flu?
Blimey when I had it last christmas I couldn't move off the couch for 4 days. Even peed in a bucket. I'm impressed at your indefatigability.
He had man-flu.You can post with the flu?
Blimey when I had it last christmas I couldn't move off the couch for 4 days. Even peed in a bucket. I'm impressed at your indefatigability.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
What would people's thoughts be on a similar situation where the parents counted on homeopathy to heal their child instead of taking them to a hospital?
CR
Why on earth would that change anything at all? You think this is just some crusade on "the poor christians"...?What would people's thoughts be on a similar situation where the parents counted on homeopathy to heal their child instead of taking them to a hospital?
CR
Vegans starving their kid, christians killing it by not taking it to a hospital, I don't care. I doesn't matter what your beliefs are, if they caused the death of your kid, then you're a murderer in my opinion.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Why on earth would that change anything at all? You think this is just some crusade on "the poor christians"...?
Vegans starving their kid, christians killing it by not taking it to a hospital, I don't care. I doesn't matter what your beliefs are, if they caused the death of your kid, then you're a murderer in my opinion.
What if they died because of the invasiveness of "modern medicine"? That sort of perspective cuts both ways.Why on earth would that change anything at all? You think this is just some crusade on "the poor christians"...?
Vegans starving their kid, christians killing it by not taking it to a hospital, I don't care. I doesn't matter what your beliefs are, if they caused the death of your kid, then you're a murderer in my opinion.
If it was something incurable like some form of cancer, then it would be a different story since we know of nothing that can save them, so try anything in the hopes that it may work, but when we are talking ******* diabetes then it is an entirely different matter.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
There is? I thought is was the opposite, the line is almost impossible to see. Maybe you should try talking to Christians that aren't from Belmont Chapel and don't stand in the middle of the High Street on a saturday with a megaphone.
Is that where they are from? They really are giving it the hard sell.There is? I thought is was the opposite, the line is almost impossible to see. Maybe you should try talking to Christians that aren't from Belmont Chapel and don't stand in the middle of the High Street on a saturday with a megaphone.
I have no problem with christians. Nor any other religious people. As long as they accept that it's all just a happy sounding fantasy that they enjoy believing ;)
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Why on earth would that change anything at all? You think this is just some crusade on "the poor christians"...?
Vegans starving their kid, christians killing it by not taking it to a hospital, I don't care. I doesn't matter what your beliefs are, if they caused the death of your kid, then you're a murderer in my opinion.
So if you bring your kids to a hospital, the doctors perform a procedure they say is necessary, and that procedure ends up killing the child, then you're guilty of murder?Why on earth would that change anything at all? You think this is just some crusade on "the poor christians"...?
Vegans starving their kid, christians killing it by not taking it to a hospital, I don't care. I doesn't matter what your beliefs are, if they caused the death of your kid, then you're a murderer in my opinion.
CR
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
What if they died because of the invasiveness of "modern medicine"? That sort of perspective cuts both ways.
This kid would never have died if she was taken to a hospital; diabetes is easily treatable.What if they died because of the invasiveness of "modern medicine"? That sort of perspective cuts both ways.
Anyway, I don't understand your question. Do you believe that because doctors occasionally makes mistakes and those mistakes result in deaths, that doctors are unimportant and we should throw away modern medicine...?
Find some statistics on life expectancy during the times of "pray the ill away" and compare them with those we have now.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
So if you bring your kids to a hospital, the doctors perform a procedure they say is necessary, and that procedure ends up killing the child, then you're guilty of murder?
CR
You build a house on unstable ground. You try and add more supports to it but it still ends up collapsing. Contrast that with attempting to dance the ground into hardening.So if you bring your kids to a hospital, the doctors perform a procedure they say is necessary, and that procedure ends up killing the child, then you're guilty of murder?
CR
Originally Posted by Idaho:
Is that where they are from? They really are giving it the hard sell.
I have no problem with christians. Nor any other religious people. As long as they accept that it's all just a happy sounding fantasy that they enjoy believing ;)
Stop with the backhanders, if you please.Is that where they are from? They really are giving it the hard sell.
I have no problem with christians. Nor any other religious people. As long as they accept that it's all just a happy sounding fantasy that they enjoy believing ;)
Anyway, yes, Belmont is a factory that produces little Christian soldiers and their timid little wives. Their chief "elder" gave the "talk" (he refused to call it a sermon) at th3e Ecumunical service at the Cathedral.
It produced angry muttering from everyone else.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
This kid would never have died if she was taken to a hospital; diabetes is easily treatable.
Anyway, I don't understand your question. Do you believe that because doctors occasionally makes mistakes and those mistakes result in deaths, that doctors are unimportant and we should throw away modern medicine...?
Find some statistics on life expectancy during the times of "pray the ill away" and compare them with those we have now.
Read up on Paradigms, then you'll understand my point.This kid would never have died if she was taken to a hospital; diabetes is easily treatable.
Anyway, I don't understand your question. Do you believe that because doctors occasionally makes mistakes and those mistakes result in deaths, that doctors are unimportant and we should throw away modern medicine...?
Find some statistics on life expectancy during the times of "pray the ill away" and compare them with those we have now.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
So if you bring your kids to a hospital, the doctors perform a procedure they say is necessary, and that procedure ends up killing the child, then you're guilty of murder?
CR
Nope. Doctors are the best we've got. Nothing else comes even remotely close in terms of success, and it's certainly better than any make-believe stuff, like "applejuice is all mah baby needs!!". They don't succeed all the time, but it's the most we can do.So if you bring your kids to a hospital, the doctors perform a procedure they say is necessary, and that procedure ends up killing the child, then you're guilty of murder?
CR
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Read up on Paradigms, then you'll understand my point.
I have little time for fables.Read up on Paradigms, then you'll understand my point.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
I have little time for fables.
So you don't know what a Paradigm Shift is, then?I have little time for fables.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
So you don't know what a Paradigm Shift is, then?
You said "Paradigm". There are about a billion things named "Paradigm" in the world, and yes, it's also another word for "fable".So you don't know what a Paradigm Shift is, then?
Anyway, I really don't care. I know you're just trying to be clever, but that's the very thing making me very uninterested.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
You said "Paradigm". There are about a billion things named "Paradigm" in the world, and yes, it's also another word for "fable".
Anyway, I really don't care. I know you're just trying to be clever, but that's the very thing making me very uninterested.
Well I'm not trying to be clever, and you obviously do care because you're in the thread.You said "Paradigm". There are about a billion things named "Paradigm" in the world, and yes, it's also another word for "fable".
Anyway, I really don't care. I know you're just trying to be clever, but that's the very thing making me very uninterested.
Look at it this way, modern Medicine is the current Paradigm, 500 years ago the Paradigm was the diametric opposite. So, should they have sent people to gaol for using anasethic back then?
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Well I'm not trying to be clever, and you obviously do care because you're in the thread.
Look at it this way, modern Medicine is the current Paradigm, 500 years ago the Paradigm was the diametric opposite. So, should they have sent people to gaol for using anasethic back then?
...........................Well I'm not trying to be clever, and you obviously do care because you're in the thread.
Look at it this way, modern Medicine is the current Paradigm, 500 years ago the Paradigm was the diametric opposite. So, should they have sent people to gaol for using anasethic back then?
Fail?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
...........................
Fail?
Answer the question? Would it have been right for the authorities of the time, based on the best available evidence, to punish people for using anasthetic?...........................
Fail?
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Answer the question? Would it have been right for the authorities of the time, based on the best available evidence, to punish people for using anasthetic?
Uhm................ No. Modern medicine isn't just a "paradigm", modern medicine is an actual and proven way to save peoples lives. Prayer isn't.Answer the question? Would it have been right for the authorities of the time, based on the best available evidence, to punish people for using anasthetic?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Uhm................ No. Modern medicine isn't just a "paradigm", modern medicine is an actual and proven way to save peoples lives. Prayer isn't.
That's exactly what they said 500 years ago as well. They executed people for using anasthetic back then, by the way.Uhm................ No. Modern medicine isn't just a "paradigm", modern medicine is an actual and proven way to save peoples lives. Prayer isn't.
My point is this, people should not be punished for holding a belief and then acting upon it, so long as they act in good faith. Clearly, these parents were responsible for the welfare of their child and they failed specacularly. However, punishing them for doing what they believed to be right is pointless, and therefore clruel and vindictive.
They need to be educated and there's precious little education to be had in prison.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
That's exactly what they said 500 years ago as well. They executed people for using anasthetic back then, by the way.
My point is this, people should not be punished for holding a belief and then acting upon it, so long as they act in good faith. Clearly, these parents were responsible for the welfare of their child and they failed specacularly. However, punishing them for doing what they believed to be right is pointless, and therefore clruel and vindictive.
They need to be educated and there's precious little education to be had in prison.
They didn't live their entire lives in a remote forest, did they?That's exactly what they said 500 years ago as well. They executed people for using anasthetic back then, by the way.
My point is this, people should not be punished for holding a belief and then acting upon it, so long as they act in good faith. Clearly, these parents were responsible for the welfare of their child and they failed specacularly. However, punishing them for doing what they believed to be right is pointless, and therefore clruel and vindictive.
They need to be educated and there's precious little education to be had in prison.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
That's exactly what they said 500 years ago as well. They executed people for using anasthetic back then, by the way.
Who cares what they said 500 years ago? People were ignored SoB's back then, who gives a That's exactly what they said 500 years ago as well. They executed people for using anasthetic back then, by the way.
what they were thinking? The bottom line remains the same; doctors save people. Priests bury them.Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
My point is this, people should not be punished for holding a belief and then acting upon it, so long as they act in good faith. Clearly, these parents were responsible for the welfare of their child and they failed specacularly. However, punishing them for doing what they believed to be right is pointless, and therefore clruel and vindictive.
They need to be educated and there's precious little education to be had in prison.
Viking put it brilliantly.My point is this, people should not be punished for holding a belief and then acting upon it, so long as they act in good faith. Clearly, these parents were responsible for the welfare of their child and they failed specacularly. However, punishing them for doing what they believed to be right is pointless, and therefore clruel and vindictive.
They need to be educated and there's precious little education to be had in prison.
And yes, I do believe that these people belong in jail, for all the reasons we normally put people in jail for. First off, they killed their child. It didn't "die", it was murdered. Secondly, we as a society needs to give out the message that "No, killing off your child because of your backwater beliefs are NOT ok!". We need to make sure that this will never, ever happen again. Every lunatic parent out there should be forced to realize that they are responsible for any offspring in their care, and that refusal to seek medical care will be met with consequences.
This isn't about these two idiots. This is about the innocent children unlucky enough to be bred by such people. They need protection from parents like these, just like they need protection from parents who beat them every time they come home from the pub.
This is torture of innocent children. And there's simply no excuse for it.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Who cares what they said 500 years ago? People were ignored SoB's back then, who gives a what they were thinking? The bottom line remains the same; doctors save people. Priests bury them.
They were very clever 500 years ago, they made the best decisions based on the available evidence. The point is very imprtant, because in 500 years someone may try to call you a "ingored SoB". Take a moment to consider this.Who cares what they said 500 years ago? People were ignored SoB's back then, who gives a
what they were thinking? The bottom line remains the same; doctors save people. Priests bury them.Originally Posted by :
Viking put it brilliantly.
And yes, I do believe that these people belong in jail, for all the reasons we normally put people in jail for. First off, they killed their child. It didn't "die", it was murdered. Secondly, we as a society needs to give out the message that "No, killing off your child because of your backwater beliefs are NOT ok!". We need to make sure that this will never, ever happen again. Every lunatic parent out there should be forced to realize that they are responsible for any offspring in their care, and that refusal to seek medical care will be met with consequences.
This isn't about these two idiots. This is about the innocent children unlucky enough to be bred by such people. They need protection from parents like these, just like they need protection from parents who beat them every time they come home from the pub.
This is torture of innocent children. And there's simply no excuse for it.
Maybe you don't have the concept of mens rea in Norway? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Thankfully we have it in England and the US. Murder requires a very specific mens rea, unless you can demonstrate that it's just manslaughter.Viking put it brilliantly.
And yes, I do believe that these people belong in jail, for all the reasons we normally put people in jail for. First off, they killed their child. It didn't "die", it was murdered. Secondly, we as a society needs to give out the message that "No, killing off your child because of your backwater beliefs are NOT ok!". We need to make sure that this will never, ever happen again. Every lunatic parent out there should be forced to realize that they are responsible for any offspring in their care, and that refusal to seek medical care will be met with consequences.
This isn't about these two idiots. This is about the innocent children unlucky enough to be bred by such people. They need protection from parents like these, just like they need protection from parents who beat them every time they come home from the pub.
This is torture of innocent children. And there's simply no excuse for it.
Stop trying to cloud the issue with emotive language.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
They were very clever 500 years ago, they made the best decisions based on the available evidence. The point is very imprtant, because in 500 years someone may try to call you a "ingored SoB". Take a moment to consider this.
An ignorant SoB? Of course I will be that, why on earth shouldn't I? Unless the world suddenly starts going backwards, people in the future will know a lot more than we do now, and yes, we'll be ignorant SoB's. And no, they weren't basing their decisions based on the best available evidence. They were disregarding a lot of proven science back then because of the ignorant to smart people ratio. But some people were fortunate enough to be able to utilize the discoveries science had given, and guess what? They fared a lot better.They were very clever 500 years ago, they made the best decisions based on the available evidence. The point is very imprtant, because in 500 years someone may try to call you a "ingored SoB". Take a moment to consider this.
Just like this kid would've survived easily if it wasn't for all the ignorant SoB's that killed her.
But I highly doubt that prayer will ever take the place of science. So I don't really see the relevance here. Sorry.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Maybe you don't have the concept of mens rea in Norway? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Thankfully we have it in England and the US. Murder requires a very specific mens rea, unless you can demonstrate that it's just manslaughter.
Since when have I ever cared about silly law concepts? And bah, "manslaughter" is just another way of saying you killed someone, which was my point.Maybe you don't have the concept of mens rea in Norway? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Thankfully we have it in England and the US. Murder requires a very specific mens rea, unless you can demonstrate that it's just manslaughter.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Since when have I ever cared about silly law concepts?
When the law concepts became an important part of the charges you want to lay, I presume.Since when have I ever cared about silly law concepts?
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
When the law concepts became an important part of the charges you want to lay, I presume.
Bah.When the law concepts became an important part of the charges you want to lay, I presume.
My point is very simple; doctors work, praying don't. Children needs to be protected from parents who try to kill them, and when it happens, like in this case, it must be met with real consequences. Like 10 years in prison.
Like we do when you kill someone who isn't your child. That someone believes that you should get a lower sentence because it was your own child you killed is beyond me. Also, we're only having this discussion in the first place because we're talking about christians, not muslims/vegans/whatever, if it was muslims/vegans/whatever then you two would've already brought out the gallows.
They should get done with charges of neglect and possible other things, but it isn't murder. They did try to heal their child afterall, however mis-informed it was.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Bah.
My point is very simple; doctors work, praying don't.
Children needs to be protected from parents who try to kill them, and when it happens, like in this case, it must be met with real consequences. Like 10 years in prison
Like we do when you kill someone who isn't your child. That someone believes that you should get a lower sentence because it was your own child you killed is beyond me.
The parents didn't try to kill them, hence the mens rea being important. This isn't the same as, say, an honour killing. Intent is important in a court of law. Bah.
My point is very simple; doctors work, praying don't.
Children needs to be protected from parents who try to kill them, and when it happens, like in this case, it must be met with real consequences. Like 10 years in prison
Like we do when you kill someone who isn't your child. That someone believes that you should get a lower sentence because it was your own child you killed is beyond me.
These individuals were following principles which were theologically incorrect, as I believe has been stated already. It isn't that praying doesn't work, it's that God has already provided them with the tools for their child to be healthy and the parents chose to ignore them.
Originally Posted by :
Also, we're only having this discussion in the first place because we're talking about christians, not muslims/vegans/whatever, if it was muslims/vegans/whatever then you two would've already brought out the gallows.
Nope.Also, we're only having this discussion in the first place because we're talking about christians, not muslims/vegans/whatever, if it was muslims/vegans/whatever then you two would've already brought out the gallows.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
An ignorant SoB? Of course I will be that, why on earth shouldn't I? Unless the world suddenly starts going backwards, people in the future will know a lot more than we do now, and yes, we'll be ignorant SoB's. And no, they weren't basing their decisions based on the best available evidence. They were disregarding a lot of proven science back then because of the ignorant to smart people ratio. But some people were fortunate enough to be able to utilize the discoveries science had given, and guess what? They fared a lot better.
Next thing, you'll be telling me they thought the world was flat.An ignorant SoB? Of course I will be that, why on earth shouldn't I? Unless the world suddenly starts going backwards, people in the future will know a lot more than we do now, and yes, we'll be ignorant SoB's. And no, they weren't basing their decisions based on the best available evidence. They were disregarding a lot of proven science back then because of the ignorant to smart people ratio. But some people were fortunate enough to be able to utilize the discoveries science had given, and guess what? They fared a lot better.
Originally Posted by :
Since when have I ever cared about silly law concepts? And bah, "manslaughter" is just another way of saying you killed someone, which was my point.
Then you can't prosecute murder, can you?Since when have I ever cared about silly law concepts? And bah, "manslaughter" is just another way of saying you killed someone, which was my point.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
They were very clever 500 years ago, they made the best decisions based on the available evidence. The point is very imprtant, because in 500 years someone may try to call you a "ingored SoB". Take a moment to consider this.
Aren't the people surviving diabetes good enough evidence? Are their survival a mere illusion?They were very clever 500 years ago, they made the best decisions based on the available evidence. The point is very imprtant, because in 500 years someone may try to call you a "ingored SoB". Take a moment to consider this.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Maybe you don't have the concept of mens rea in Norway? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Thankfully we have it in England and the US. Murder requires a very specific mens rea, unless you can demonstrate that it's just manslaughter.
They must have known very well that there was a great possibility that a simple medical treatment was all that would've been needed to make their child healthy. This makes a mind as guilty and irresponsible as you can have it.Maybe you don't have the concept of mens rea in Norway? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Thankfully we have it in England and the US. Murder requires a very specific mens rea, unless you can demonstrate that it's just manslaughter.
When you take completely unnecessary risks with other persons life, it is murder if they die. If they so desperatly needed to, they could have waited with applying their mumbo jumbo after a visit to the doctor, in case it turned out there was no simple cure.
Originally Posted by Viking:
They must have known very well that there was a great possibility that a simple medical treatment was all that would've been needed to make their child healthy. This makes a mind as guilty and irresponsible as you can have it.
When you take completely unnecessary risks with other persons life, it is murder if they die. If they so desperatly needed to, they could have waited with applying their mumbo jumbo after a visit to the doctor, in case it turned out there was no simple cure.
Indeed it is! If your actions can result in death, it's murder no matter if you intended it or not. For example, you might hit someone just to hit him, but if that person dies because of the punch(which is quite possible), then it's murder, because you must've known that was an extreme consequence of your action.They must have known very well that there was a great possibility that a simple medical treatment was all that would've been needed to make their child healthy. This makes a mind as guilty and irresponsible as you can have it.
When you take completely unnecessary risks with other persons life, it is murder if they die. If they so desperatly needed to, they could have waited with applying their mumbo jumbo after a visit to the doctor, in case it turned out there was no simple cure.
Same applies here. Murder.
Originally Posted by Viking:
Aren't the people surviving diabetes good enough evidence? Are their survival a mere illusion?
That's not the point, the point is intent.Aren't the people surviving diabetes good enough evidence? Are their survival a mere illusion?
Originally Posted by :
They must have known very well that there was a great possibility that a simple medical treatment was all that would've been needed to make their child healthy. This makes a mind as guilty and irresponsible as you can have it.
When you take completely unnecessary risks with other persons life, it is murder if they die. If they so desperatly needed to, they could have waited with applying their mumbo jumbo after a visit to the doctor, in case it turned out there was no simple cure.
They must have known very well that there was a great possibility that a simple medical treatment was all that would've been needed to make their child healthy. This makes a mind as guilty and irresponsible as you can have it.
When you take completely unnecessary risks with other persons life, it is murder if they die. If they so desperatly needed to, they could have waited with applying their mumbo jumbo after a visit to the doctor, in case it turned out there was no simple cure.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Indeed it is! If your actions can result in death, it's murder no matter if you intended it or not. For example, you might hit someone just to hit him, but if that person dies because of the punch(which is quite possible), then it's murder, because you must've known that was an extreme consequence of your action.
Same applies here. Murder.
Voluntary manslaughter at best, not murder. Murder requires the intent to kill. In English Law Lit., "the killing of another with malice of forethought".Indeed it is! If your actions can result in death, it's murder no matter if you intended it or not. For example, you might hit someone just to hit him, but if that person dies because of the punch(which is quite possible), then it's murder, because you must've known that was an extreme consequence of your action.
Same applies here. Murder.
Here there was no intent to kill, ergo no "murder". That doesn't mean there was no homicide.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO