- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jury rules against dad trying to save his 7-year-old from gender ‘transition’
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:28 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:28 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
should we handcuff a judge with some general, statutory solution, or should we allow the jusge to use best judgment in each case,
Historically we’ve allowed the judges to use their best judgement in marginal cases. When judges prove to be retarded, we make laws to take that decision out of their retarded hands.
If you had your druthers I guess we’d just have no laws concerning the treatment of children by their parents? Just let the judges decide everything?
1
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:30 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Let’s look at an analogous scenario. Child is terminally ill with XYZ. There exists an experimental procedure which has a 5% chance of a complete cure. Whether successful or not, the procedure will give the child indescribable, screaming agony for six months or until death, whichever is longer. Otherwise, XYZ brings a peaceful and completely painless death
You think this is analogous
Dear Lord
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:32 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
You think this is analogous
Dear Lord
Yeah.
He’s kind of flailing now.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:34 pm to mouton
quote:I have not considered that question and do not want to express a firm opinion without significant analysis. I suspect that my final opinion would turn upon whether that procedure was deemed to be medically in the best interest of the chil, and I doubt that many physicians would recommend such a procedure.
AggieHank86 what about an actual sex change operation? Would performing a sex change operation on a seven year old child constitute child abuse in your world?
but if we are engaging in ridiculous hypotheticals, let’s say that mother and child are being held hostage by terrorist. The sadistic bastards say that they will kill both the mother and the child, unless the mother chops off the child’s leg. To save both their lives, she does so. Was that child abuse? They would both be dead had she not done so.
Ridiculous hypotheticals are rather ridiculous, are they not?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:34 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
You think this is analogous
Dear Lord
You're talking to a guy who compared our pulling 50 troops out of Syria to the signing of Treaty of Versailles - I kid you not.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:34 pm to AggieHank86
Straws. Grasping at, you are.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:34 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
should we handcuff a judge with some general, statutory solution, or should we allow the jusge to use best judgment in each case, based upon the facrs as presented at trial?
I think our legal system is the best in the world,
but you seem to think it is infallible.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:37 pm to Flats
quote:on the other hand, do we lose our collective shite when one judge makes one decision with which we do not agree and start immediately legislating and regulating all judicial discretion out of existence?
Historically we’ve allowed the judges to use their best judgement in marginal cases. When judges prove to be retarded, we make laws to take that decision out of their retarded hands.
If you had your druthers I guess we’d just have no laws concerning the treatment of children by their parents? Just let the judges decide everything?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:37 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
I think our legal system is the best in the world,
but you seem to think it is infallible
Moreover he argues for a fantasy
He argues that giving judges guidance on what is acceptable is somehow unusual
but we literally do that with thousands of different legal vehicles
judges can have their opinions and so can juries but their opinions are still constricted by law.
Hank acts like it would be somehow egregious to say that passing a law that says don't do something permanent medically when evidence shows a 98% possibility that you are doing irreparable harm no matter how dumb the jury or judge involved are
Hell we have laws on a lot of things with less than 98% certainty
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 4:38 pm
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:38 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I have not considered that question and do not want to express a firm opinion without significant analysis. I suspect that my final opinion would turn upon whether that procedure was deemed to be medically in the best interest of the chil, and I doubt that many physicians would recommend such a procedure.
but if we are engaging in ridiculous hypotheticals, let’s say that mother and child are being held hostage by terrorist. The sadistic bastards say that they will kill both the mother and the child, unless the mother chops off the child’s leg. To save both their lives, she does so. Was that child abuse? They would both be dead had she not done so.
Ridiculous hypotheticals are rather ridiculous, are they not?
Oh JFC.
Just stop it, Hank. Man up, take your ‘L’ and just go home.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:38 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
do we lose our collective shite when one judge makes one decision with which we do not agree and start immediately legislating and regulating all judicial discretion out of existence?
Yeah,that's exactly what this is./s
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:39 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
on the other hand, do we lose our collective shite when one judge makes one decision with which we do not agree and start immediately legislating and regulating all judicial discretion out of existence
No we don't legislate all judicial discretion out of existence. That's just hyperbole
Judges operate within constraints all the time and we don't act like the existence of those constraints means we want to impose constraints everywhere
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:40 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Ridiculous hypotheticals are rather ridiculous, are they not?
You mean like the one you used a few lines up?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:40 pm to TrueTiger
quote:to the contrary, I have acknowledged probably 50 times in this thread that this approach will occasionally provide sub-optimal results in some cases. It is a cost of doing business in a free society.
I think our legal system is the best in the world,
but you seem to think it is infallible.
Everyone else on this thread seems to disagree. “If it saves just one child,“ right?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:40 pm to Godfather1
This is one of those threads again where Hank has earned 100% of his shitty reputation on this board and has no right to complain about it
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 4:43 pm
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:41 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Everyone else on this thread seems to disagree. “If it saves just one child,“ right?
LOL
Desperation on your part. Desperation
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:41 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
This is one of those threads again where Hank has earned 100% of his shitty reputation on this bored and has no right to complain about it
But will anyway.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:41 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
this bored
Indeed
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:42 pm to Godfather1
quote:
But will anyway
I think the funniest part is that he doesn't think he's being transparent in this thread
That's really the best part. he actually thinks that he's covering his tracks
Posted on 10/22/19 at 4:43 pm to ShortyRob
Now child abuse is "just the cost of doing business in a free society".
He is a disingenuous arse.
He is a disingenuous arse.
Page 29 of 45
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News