Go back  

No response other than more threats

October 15 2010 at 12:11 PM
Fundie  (Login Fundie)
Registered User


Response to Is it legal to say that?

 
I note that Melody has responded, but her response completely sidesteps the issue of what *should* be legal, focusing instead only on what *is* legal.

http://cryomedical.blogspot.com/2010/10/more-cryonics-forum-foolishness.html
http://cryomedical.blogspot.com/2010/10/impersonating-physician.html

The only comment she argued on the question of what the law should be was "I think it should be illegal, if it is not already." Well, how nice -- why should the rest of us be subject to laws based solely on what Melody thinks they should be? If Melody thinks same sex marriage should not be illegal, should it? If Melody decides skin graft surgery should not be illegal, should it? If Melody decides it should be illegal for me to say that I believe God created the earth and mankind six thousand years ago and that I think it would be a good idea for you to believe it, too, should it become illegal? Should we just run everything we do and say by Melody first?

As for the use of words like physician, patient, etc., definitions are *subjective*. Melody may not believe that, but her personal opinion on the subject is not sufficient justification for infringing the liberty of others. Even if the whole of "the medical community" agrees on a definition, that still doesn't make that definition objective. Even if 99.9% of society agrees, that still does not make the definition objective.

I am arguing that people have the right to go to witch doctors if they want to, and to call them doctors if they want to, and Melody has the right to try to persuade them not to, but not to interfere with what they do and say.

Melody is arguing that she doesn't think she can do a good enough job of putting her argument together to stop people from doing what she thinks they shouldn't do, and so she should have the right to use force of law to prevent them from doing what she thinks they shouldn't do. She is arguing for the existence of an objective standard about what people should do and think. I don't believe in that standard. This is indistinguishable from Melody imposing her view on the rest of the world.

Melody is not just threatening lawsuits; she is threatening legislation and regulation. At least with a lawsuit you sort of get a shot to defend yourself in court, and you can often get a jury.

 
 Respond to this message   
Responses

Find more forums on Science and TechnologyCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement