Aardvark on April 27, 2011, 06:40:24 pm
Quote
J Thomas: I see. You trust the FDA about this. "The FDA has determined that certain steroids are safe".

I don't trust any agency completely, especially any agency run by this administration, but I do trust that steroids opponents would be doing their best to prove that FDA steroids from beef were bad for human beings. A lack of evidence over so many years is a good sign.

SandySandfort on April 27, 2011, 06:57:12 pm
Congrats to Sandy, Rhonda pissed bitch face is priceless ... Am I a masochist if it turn me on

Congratulations are due to Lee Oaks in this case. He has caught Ronda's evilness in all its glory.

sams on April 27, 2011, 07:19:45 pm
Congrats to Sandy, Rhonda pissed bitch face is priceless ... Am I a masochist if it turn me on

Congratulations are due to Lee Oaks in this case. He has caught Ronda's evilness in all its glory.

Congratulation to Lee Oaks, credits shall be given to you :D

If I might give a little Idea, maybe you should include a ''charming'' full body feature picture of Rhonda, I'm pretty sure she will be the comic prefered female charater  ;)

Aardvark on April 27, 2011, 07:37:51 pm
Quote
Sam: If I might give a little Idea, maybe you should include a ''charming'' full body feature picture of Rhonda, I'm pretty sure she will be the comic prefered female charater...

Rhonda, inmate of the year. Hmm. I don't think I could go for someone with evil lines in her face. :)

Rorschach on April 27, 2011, 07:39:32 pm
Quote
J Thomas: I see. You trust the FDA about this. "The FDA has determined that certain steroids are safe".

I don't trust any agency completely, especially any agency run by this administration, but I do trust that steroids opponents would be doing their best to prove that FDA steroids from beef were bad for human beings. A lack of evidence over so many years is a good sign.
According to the FDA, sugar calms children.

NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on April 27, 2011, 08:48:37 pm
Now consider this example: You have strong reason to believe that Ginger is carrying an untreated STD which can cause serious illness.  But when you suggest to her that she get tested and treated, she says she is in a hurry to make $10,000 to pay off a debt and she'll get treatment after that./

The fundamental problem with this scenario is that it is unusably sloppy.  Aside from being written in the second person (which generally results in statements that may be interpreted as accusatory),  it provides very few initial assumptions:

1) There is a person named Ginger, presumed to be female (since referred to as "she").
2) There is a second, unnamed person, who has a "strong reason" to believe that Ginger is carrying an untreated STD whose nature can cause serious illness. 
3) This second person suggests that Ginger get tested and treated.
4) Ginger responds to this suggestion by claiming (a) that "making" $10,000 is a short term higher priority than this, and (b) she will seek treatment following that.

We are not given:

A) An explanation of the "strong reason"  this unnamed person this unnamed person has for his or her belief.  It could be anything from a mystical vision to the results of a recent test of Ginger's blood that indicates infection with the STD in  question.

B) The nature of the relationship between Ginger and this second person.  Perhaps this second person is perceived by Ginger -- and perhaps even a number of other persons -- as a stalker.  Were this given, it might also explain why the second person is concerned with the matter.

C) Why this unnamed person insists on such urgency.  It might take Ginger a couple of hours to "make" $10,000, leaving her plenty of time to deal with the STD the unnamed person alleges she has.

D) Whether or not Ginger's response should be taken at face value.  One thing that seems quite clear is that Ginger and the person considering the evidence are two different persons; thus Ginger's response may or may not be her actual intents, values, or plans.

E) Why the second person would claim that Ginger is a prostitute -- at least one of the options given has this person making a public claim to this effect.  It  was not made an explicit assumption for the example, and could easily be intended as a malicious claim (assuming the the culture that this takes place in views prostitution as less than reputable -- we can be reasonably sure it isn't Ceres, given that a value is expressed in dollars and a communication mechanism called "Facebook" exists -- but beyond that it is unclear if this is, for example, the current US or perhaps an AnCap society in North America that evolves in the next 30 years), a delusion, or a simple mistake.

F) If, somehow, the unnamed person is correct about Ginger being a prostitute, that her means of "making" $10,000 involves her engaging in services that might spread the STD to others.  She may well have other ways of getting the $10,000, such as selling some land, brokering a deal of some sort, performing a solo sex show, etc.

G) If, somehow further, the unnamed person is correct about Ginger being a prostitute and that she plans to "make" the $10,000 in question by engaging in prostitution and (to shorten this list of assumptions by several items) that she is either withholding or lying about her realistic understanding of the likelihood of some given STD infection, that she is not taking sufficient precautions to minimize the likelihood of the transmission of said STD.

H) If every implicit assumption given is accepted, why one might reasonably expect that Ginger would risk her reputation in what would presumably be a relatively lucrative career on the need to deal with a $10,000 debt in such a short term that treatment and work could not be done in parallel.

These are enough holes to drive a fleet of trucks through!  The answers to each of these could dramatically change the ethical interpretation of such an attempt to spread information regarding Ginger.

If J Thomas, or someone else would like to present a clear and unambiguous scenario, that could be addressed reasonably.  As given, however, I would most likely conclude that were the unnamed second person to post such claims, that he or she has diminished credibility, and that the claims were quite possibly made with some unstated ulterior motive.

J Thomas on April 27, 2011, 08:59:49 pm
Now consider this example: You have strong reason to believe that Ginger is carrying an untreated STD which can cause serious illness.  But when you suggest to her that she get tested and treated, she says she is in a hurry to make $10,000 to pay off a debt and she'll get treatment after that./

These are enough holes to drive a fleet of trucks through!  The answers to each of these could dramatically change the ethical interpretation of such an attempt to spread information regarding Ginger.

You know perfectly well what the story was intended to convey -- you intentionally came up with various ways to misinterpret it to claim that it was unclear.

If you like, you can come up with a way to state it that will make the problem clear.

For example, the second person might suspect that Ginger has an STD because she's the only one he has had sex with in months or years and soon after paying for her services he came down with symptoms and got himself tested.

I don't see why you insist on knowing all the details when it's the consequences that are interesting.

spudit on April 27, 2011, 09:32:52 pm
Sorry no hookers in this one.

Here's a public health issue in my real world right now.

This past Saturday night I ate some hotdogs bought frozen solid from a mom and pop store I like and kept in a fridge here for 3 days, then got very sick within the hour. So did the dog who hurled his share as it hit me almost as hard. Two nasty and miserable days later I look at the package date to see if what I ate in late April had been getting too close, hence the mark down.

It was dated for mid Feburary sale. Pissed, thoroughly and appropriatly so.

But at whom, the store or the wholesaler? And the big one, call the health department?

The answer, no way. I am not going to sic The Man on that little shop, nor am I going to sue them or even torch the place a bit. Those actions would destroy a small business and hurt people I like too much. They were sold a lousy pack of weiniers and passed them on. Just me, I checked, and my storage method was correct.

So the libertarian, ZAP and decent solution is to bring the wrapper in next trip and have a wee chat. Their product hurt me, make it right(er).

Being the decent folks they are I expect an apology and maybe a little store credit. It's enough. If they blow me off I don't go back and I say unkind but true things.

Hookers are more fun, I hear.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

Tucci78 on April 27, 2011, 09:56:52 pm
I'd concluded my post above with the expression of my desire to see sams and his social/traditionalist "conservative" co-religionists make a logically supported case to the effect that the criminalization of man-boy sexual activities (or the less formal violent aggressions perpetrated against what he likes to call the "NAMBLOID" folk) is justified by actual objectively demonstrated harm done to anyone involved in such activities.

In response sams wrote (and I'm quoting him in his post's entirety):

You are either being a moron, so willing to have ''Online debate smack down'' orgasm that you are fracking confounding me with some else.

No fracking address my points or go get some fracking blow job and stop fantasying has Champion of liberty in a forum ... especially when you are behaving like a moron.

...thereby proving that sams' brain is, indeed, working on outdated software.
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on April 27, 2011, 10:05:10 pm
You know perfectly well what the story was intended to convey -- you intentionally came up with various ways to misinterpret it to claim that it was unclear.

Bullshit.  You are incredibly sloppy, and this is far from the first time.  Further, you're now trying to make prostitutes look as disreputable as you have scientists.

There is a standard form for setting up a scenario, and that is to explicitly give the assumptions up front, followed by the nature of the scenario.  If a question comes up in the scenario that isn't answered by the assumptions, it is an unbound variable, and one may freely choose the worst possible case for the variable.

You started making implicit assumptions in the middle of the scenario, which if ignored would have allowed someone to change after another had given an answer.  I didn't want to permit you to cheat like that.


Quote
If you like, you can come up with a way to state it that will make the problem clear.

Not my problem.

Quote
For example, the second person might suspect that Ginger has an STD because she's the only one he has had sex with in months or years and soon after paying for her services he came down with symptoms and got himself tested.

Is Ginger, in fact, a prostitute?  Does she advertise this fact (there are some ladies who are quite discreet about it, or UTR - "Under The Radar")?  Are there legal or cultural restrictions to prostitution where this occurred?  These ALL have an impact on the ethics of how to handle it.

How did the conversation go?  If the second person was rude to her, she might readily give a flip answer.  It would be extremely unlikely that a prostitute would delay treatment and knowingly pass on an STD (unless they were seeking to be infected -- see "bug chaser"); that would hurt business quickly and dramatically,   If there was some reason to think that the answer was serious, then this second person might suggest passing the information on to potential sexual clients-- the whole set of information, not a blanket statement that "Ginger has diseasus sexulis" since he or she wouldn't know that (among other things, Ginger might have already gotten treatment).  Especially important would be to provide the reasons for the suspicion and the dates, so that any information wouldn't linger perpetually.

Quote
I don't see why you insist on knowing all the details when it's the consequences that are interesting.

As I said, the consequences would probably be for the person posting the information to lose credibility.  I have seen such claims posted, and they are typically by persons who oppose prostitution  ex lovers or customers, stalkers, or competitors.  .Just look at the people (whoever they are) who created PornWikileaks.

sam on April 27, 2011, 10:05:49 pm
Everything you say could be true. It's the sort of situation where people have a lot of money depending on convincing the public of something, so we can expect a lot of lies, but there's a chance you have the truth of it here.

But I don't quite understand what you think is going on. Is it that 10% to 15% of EU farmers are criminals who illegally do whatever they think will make money faster? But 100% of US farmers do what they think is best for the final consumers?

The EU attempts to enforce unreasonable laws, so does not get much compliance.  The FDA enforces laws that are, for farmers, less unreasonable, so gets more compliance.

More laws, less compliance.  Indeed, that is the intention.  The purpose of laws is not to be obeyed, but to ensure that government officials can punish anyone at will.  Obeying the law does not make one less likely to be punished, nor does disobeying it make one more likely to be punished.

Tucci78 on April 27, 2011, 10:12:57 pm
This past Saturday night I ate some hotdogs bought frozen solid from a mom and pop store I like and kept in a fridge here for 3 days, then got very sick within the hour. So did the dog who hurled his share as it hit me almost as hard. Two nasty and miserable days later I look at the package date to see if what I ate in late April had been getting too close, hence the mark down.

It was dated for mid Feburary sale. Pissed, thoroughly and appropriatly so.

But at whom, the store or the wholesaler? And the big one, call the health department?

Might have been staphylococcal food poisoning.  Sounds a bit like it.  Whatever the cause, however, the "sell-by" date is of less concern than are:

(a) what happened to the hotdogs' contents before they were sealed in their package, and

(b) how the package had been handled before it was received - "frozen solid" - at the point of purchase.

Much of this was beyond the control of the proprietors of the store.  Packaged foodstuffs are commonly purchased or consumed well after their "expiration" dates (how long might stuff sit in one's freezer at home before getting thawed out and cooked?) without adverse consequences such as have been described.  The standards set for such dating are conservative in the extreme, largely as matters of bureaucratic and lawyerly ass-covering. 

I think it more likely that the taint hit the hotdogs further back in the production-and-conveyance chain, meaning that it's possible that quite a few other people suffered gastrointestinal upset as the result of deliveries of this same batch of wieners to other stores.  Worth looking into?  Maybe so.
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

spudit on April 27, 2011, 10:25:06 pm
There does seem to be a connection to volume of law/regulation versus respect for it.

Does it seem like we each have some daily capacity, say 10,000 units of lawfulness, with the usual human ranges? If so do we start to ration it and does the 100 units required to maintain though shalt not steal start coming up short when we throw in OSHA regs, speed limits and water your lawn on even numbered days only foolishness.

Does a complete criminal maniac like Ted Bundy lack good rationing skills then? For him does thou shalt not kill sit one to one dead even with Line 273 of the National Code on Wetlands Drainage at say 2 units each?  Hmm, just gotta short one today and not a swamp in sight. Hmm.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

Tucci78 on April 27, 2011, 10:37:58 pm
The purpose of laws is not to be obeyed, but to ensure that government officials can punish anyone at will.  Obeying the law does not make one less likely to be punished, nor does disobeying it make one more likely to be punished.

Consider also that the purpose of a great many laws - arguably the majority - passed to "regulate" commercial activites (supposedly for "the public good" or "consumer protection" or "market efficiency") are in fact nothing more than government thuggery perpetrated to preserve politically connected actors already established in their markets from competition by raising the entry costs to levels which newcomers cannot profitably sustain. 

Are you familiar with the "Breakages, Ltd." concept Heinlein mentioned in his short story "Let There Be Light" (1940)?
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

sam on April 27, 2011, 10:48:51 pm
Quote from: SandySandfort link=topic=566.msg14498#msg14498
Now you are almost there. Are you saying they never discussed the ownership of the house and she just chipped in gratuitously?

That is, in practice, what people usually do.  Notoriously, one partner rationalizes that the relationship is more permanent it is, and it is not always the woman that does the rationalization.  Generally the women incorrectly believes in commitment to raise children, and the man incorrectly believes in commitment to share assets.

In practice, people do not have explicit contracts before having sex, which makes the zero aggression principle fairly useless in family matters.

Quote from: SandySandfort link=topic=566.msg14498#msg14498
I have never ever encountered such a situation. It sounds like special pleading to me.

I have never encountered any other situation.  Humans were reproducing before we invented trade and language, and contract has to be retrofitted onto an existing institution that fails to fit.

Women are apt to contribute assets unrewarded, and apt to steal assets.  While neither sex acts like homo economicus in family matters, women act even less like homo economicus than men do.

Quote from: SandySandfort link=topic=566.msg14498#msg14498
Now you also make statements about his and her beliefs without discussing how those beliefs arose. Did they discuss it or were they both flying blind?

Even people with a pre-nupt are flying blind on a lot of important matters, and most people fly a lot blinder than that.  Our sexual behavior is for the most part pre-linguistic and pre-rational.  By and large, homo economicus fails to reproduce, rarely gets laid, and if laid, gets laid in a whorehouse.

You have surely noticed that women never consent in words to sex, and frequently protest all the way to the bedroom.  The program of social conservatism is to coercively and ceremonially force sexual behavior and child raising into contract law, with witnesses and formal consent, despite the fact it does not naturally fit.

Quote from: SandySandfort link=topic=566.msg14498#msg14498
What does that mean? As an example, let's say I go into McDonald's, go up to the counter person and say, "Give me the Big Mac Combo with a diet Coke and super-size it." When the cashier gives me my order may I just walk away without paying?

Your analogy is inapplicable to sexual relationships and family formation.   Indeed, the very fact that you find yourself reaching for such an inappropriate analogy, demonstrates the irrelevance of the Zero Aggression Principle to sexual relationships and family formation.  Except for prostitutes and fertility clinics, we don't do sex and reproduction that way.  We do it an ancient way, and people who do it some other way usually die childless.