Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

-9 months to liveFollow

QuoteReply
#52 Aug 24 2010 at 2:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Samira
View User Forum
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
So once again the compassion crowd types(tulip, nobby, samy, etc) allow a radical muslim mass murderer to roam free to talk about his triumph over western society. And somehow this doesn't hurt anyone.


I hand't realized that Belk, Sam and Nobbs were in control of the Scottish Government. That's awesome, congrats guys. Can you do something about haggis?

I swear with every name change you get more thick.


Soon as I clear up the whole caber-tossing controversy and do some covert kilt investigation, I'll look into the haggis problem.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#53 Aug 24 2010 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
paulsol
View User Forum
Sage
****
4,158 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Oh those super compassionate guys at BP.





You should stop consuming petroleum derivatives. that would show them!
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#54 Aug 24 2010 at 2:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Samira
View User Forum
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Also, there's a difference between diagnosis (what's wrong with the patient) and prognosis (how I predict he'll fare).

The diagnosis in this case is not contested: metastatic prostate cancer. The prognosis was overly pessimistic.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#55 Aug 24 2010 at 2:59 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1657498616216
View User Forum
Scholar
*****
10,012 posts
Samira wrote:
Soon as I clear up the whole caber-tossing controversy and do some covert kilt investigation, I'll look into the haggis problem.


I'm entirely sure you're gonna find what you're looking for under there.

On a side note, if you get to pick a new name as a Queen of Scotland, might I suggest Juan Sánchez Villa-Lobos RamÃrez? Barring all that "I'm Egyptian" nonsense, and being a guy, and I suppose immortal, it's a totally bad *** name.

Queen Juan Sánchez Villa-Lobos RamÃrez Samira the II. Catchy and rolls right off the tongue.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#56 Aug 24 2010 at 3:01 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So releasing a terrorist convicted of killing over a hundred people on the grounds that he only had 3 months to live, who then lives another year with doctors now estimating he might live another 10 wasn't wrong? Are you saying there isn't some lesson to learn here? Nothing at all?


That doctors are fallible?

Woohoo! Lesson learned guys! I'm soooo glad we got that cleared up.


Yes. So perhaps the next time a doctor says a prisoner only has 3 months to live, so there's no reason not to be compassionate and let him go, perhaps we'll think twice about it. What other lesson did you think I was talking about?

Public pressure for/against did play a huge part in this btw. It was precisely because of all the people chiming in to let him go since he was going to die anyway that he was released. That's kinda the whole point of release on compassionate grounds, right? If the overwhelming public opinion had been to let him stay in prison, he would have stayed in prison. The judge took the public opinion into account when making his judgment.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#57 Aug 24 2010 at 3:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Samira
View User Forum
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
Samira wrote:
Soon as I clear up the whole caber-tossing controversy and do some covert kilt investigation, I'll look into the haggis problem.


I'm entirely sure you're gonna find what you're looking for under there.

On a side note, if you get to pick a new name as a Queen of Scotland, might I suggest Juan Sánchez Villa-Lobos RamÃrez? Barring all that "I'm Egyptian" nonsense, and being a guy, and I suppose immortal, it's a totally bad *** name.

Queen Juan Sánchez Villa-Lobos RamÃrez Samira the II. Catchy and rolls right off the tongue.


Haggis inspector!

And I totally agree. I'll insist on being crowned thusly.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#58 Aug 24 2010 at 3:04 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1657498616216
View User Forum
Scholar
*****
10,012 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yes. So perhaps the next time a doctor says a prisoner only has 3 months to live, so there's no reason not to be compassionate and let him go, perhaps we'll think twice about it. What other lesson did you think I was talking about?

Public pressure for/against did play a huge part in this btw. It was precisely because of all the people chiming in to let him go since he was going to die anyway that he was released. That's kinda the whole point of release on compassionate grounds, right? If the overwhelming public opinion had been to let him stay in prison, he would have stayed in prison. The judge took the public opinion into account when making his judgment.


Then how about the next time a doctor gives a prisoner 3 months to live, and he makes it to day 91, we lock his *** back up? That'll show'em.

I personally don't give an *** hair about this guy or what he did 22 years ago. It makes absolutly no difference here or anywhere else.

Edit: In or out of prison I should say. I don't give a ****.

Edited, Aug 24th 2010 4:06pm by Kaelesh
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#59 Aug 24 2010 at 3:07 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Why not? Were they supposed to foretell that the diagnosis was wrong? Should politicians now overrule medical advice based on their... intuition?


We should have allowed for the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong. See how that works?

Quote:
They weren't wrong, they exercised their judgement based on the information available to them, like most rational people do.


And the information was wrong. And, according to you, since doctors can be wrong, there's nothing wrong with the fact that he was wrong this time. That's the strange illogic that seems so strange to me. We shouldn't take into account that a diagnosis could be wrong when deciding to let someone go on compassionate grounds, but we should take it into account after the fact when people are upset that he did in fact have more than 3 months left to live?

It's one way or the other. Either we treat doctor's diagnoses as infallible, and absolve the people for believing it, but then blame the doctor for being wrong, or we treat them as fallible and absolve the doctor and blame the people for allowing the diagnosis to be used to release him in the first place. Pick one. You can't argue both at the same time.

Quote:
Quote:
And the judge was wrong to have allowed the release as well.


Technically, he was perfectly right. How can a judge act on anything but the evidence that he has? You really blame all these people for not having the power to remotely give a prognosis on someone else's cancer?


He apparently should also have assumed the diagnosis was fallible and thus denied the release. See how that works? Either he assumes it is correct, in which case the doctor is criminally liable for delivering false evidence, or he assumes it could be incorrect, in which case the judge should never have released him. Again, you can't argue both at the same time.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#60 Aug 24 2010 at 3:09 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
I personally don't give an *** hair about this guy or what he did 22 years ago. It makes absolutly no difference here or anywhere else.


So all life sentences should be commuted at 22 years? Is that your position?


PS: To the people who lost family members in the attack, I suspect it does matter.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#61 Aug 24 2010 at 3:10 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Samira wrote:
Also, there's a difference between diagnosis (what's wrong with the patient) and prognosis (how I predict he'll fare).

The diagnosis in this case is not contested: metastatic prostate cancer. The prognosis was overly pessimistic.



Oh! You and your fancy schmancy terminology! ;)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#62 Aug 24 2010 at 3:13 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1630282721753
View User Forum
Sage
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
We should have allowed for the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong. See how that works?


We did, ******. It's in the judge's statement.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#63 Aug 24 2010 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1657498616216
View User Forum
Scholar
*****
10,012 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kaelesh wrote:
I personally don't give an *** hair about this guy or what he did 22 years ago. It makes absolutly no difference here or anywhere else.


So all life sentences should be commuted at 22 years? Is that your position?

PS: To the people who lost family members in the attack, I suspect it does matter.


That's a nice attempt at reading into something that's not there. Good show chap.

I just don't give a **** about this guy or what he did.
I do find it pretty disgusting that you're taking such a hard stance on something the Scottish Govn did or didn't do because he happened to kill a few Americans taking their fat asses to Scotland for vacation. That's some pretty awesome political expedience there you're trying to drum up.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#64 Aug 24 2010 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1657498616216
View User Forum
Scholar
*****
10,012 posts
gbaji wrote:
PS: To the people who lost family members in the attack, I suspect it does matter.


And don't even try to play that sympathy card with me man. You ******* people only care about someone when they're a fetus. The moment they shoot out of a snatch, they're on their own.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#65 Aug 24 2010 at 3:18 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
gbaji wrote:
PS: To the people who lost family members in the attack, I suspect it does matter.


And don't even try to play that sympathy card with me man. You @#%^ing people only care about someone when they're a fetus. The moment they shoot out of a snatch, they're on their own.


See CBD? I get this all the time.

Who the hell is "you @#%^ing people"?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#66 Aug 24 2010 at 3:20 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
We should have allowed for the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong. See how that works?


We did, ******. It's in the judge's statement.


Quote?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#67 Aug 24 2010 at 3:22 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1673223474136
Scholar
***
1,162 posts
Quote:
So all life sentences should be commuted at 22 years? Is that your position?



He was sentenced to 27 years and spent 8 1/2 years in prison.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#68 Aug 24 2010 at 3:23 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
And for the record, there's a trick question in there, which no one has picked up on yet.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#69 Aug 24 2010 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1657498616216
View User Forum
Scholar
*****
10,012 posts
gbaji wrote:
Who the hell is "you @#%^ing people"?


You. Your ilk. Republicans. Conservatives. War Mongers.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#70 Aug 24 2010 at 3:28 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1630282721753
View User Forum
Sage
*****
14,174 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
We should have allowed for the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong. See how that works?


We did, ******. It's in the judge's statement.


Quote?


It's already been posted in this thread, though I was incorrect; it is in fact the justice secretary's statement:

Quote:
He may die sooner, he may live longer. I can only base my decision on the medical evidence before me," the justice secretary said at a news conference.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#71 Aug 24 2010 at 3:29 PM Rating: Good
Xsarus
View User Forum
ZAM Administrator
*****
10,601 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Quote?
Samira, earlier wrote:
Not quite true. From the original article:

Quote:
"He may die sooner, he may live longer. I can only base my decision on the medical evidence before me," the justice secretary said at a news conference.
Maybe read the thread, it's only two pages long.

Edited, Aug 24th 2010 4:29pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#72 Aug 24 2010 at 3:36 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Ok. But what about this part:

Quote:
Although the Act does not specify what the grounds for compassionate release are, guidance from the Scottish Prison Service, who assess applications, suggests that it may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period.


He certainly did not think that "he may live longer" would mean that the doctors were wrong, his cancer is treatable, and he might live for another decade.

Can we at least acknowledge that if the Secretary of Justice had even the slightest inkling that this prisoner could, with proper treatment, live for another 10 years that he would not have released him? Certainly, he was led to believe that this prisoner had a short life span left to him and absolutely did not expect a margin of error that large. His ruling did not take into account the possibility that the doctors could have been so horribly wrong.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#73 Aug 24 2010 at 3:42 PM Rating: Good
Xsarus
View User Forum
ZAM Administrator
*****
10,601 posts
Sure, but you can't really take into account edge cases like that, so I don't have a problem with that.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#74 Aug 24 2010 at 3:49 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1630282721753
View User Forum
Sage
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
Can we at least acknowledge that if the Secretary of Justice had even the slightest inkling that this prisoner could, with proper treatment, live for another 10 years that he would not have released him? Certainly, he was led to believe that this prisoner had a short life span left to him and absolutely did not expect a margin of error that large. His ruling did not take into account the possibility that the doctors could have been so horribly wrong.


No, I'm sure he did take that into account. Just, you know, weighted by the knowledge it was unlikely to be the case.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#75 Aug 24 2010 at 4:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Samira
View User Forum
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
It's entirely possible that the prognosis was not duly confirmed by second or third opinions. I don't know what the process is for that sort of confirmation, or even if there is a formal process. If there isn't then there should be.

There, ya happy now?

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#76 Aug 24 2010 at 4:40 PM Rating: Good
RedPhoenixxx
View User Forum
Sage
****
7,735 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's one way or the other. Either we treat doctor's diagnoses as infallible, and absolve the people for believing it, but then blame the doctor for being wrong, or we treat them as fallible and absolve the doctor and blame the people for allowing the diagnosis to be used to release him in the first place. Pick one. You can't argue both at the same time.


Of course you can. What kind of strange planet do you inhabit? You take a medical opinion as the best possible basis for making a decision which must be based on medical grounds. How complicated is that to understand? You know there is a small probability it might be wrong, but it's still the best possible basis on which to make such a decision, so you do. Even after having considered, and acknowledged, the fact that it could possibly be wrong.

You, personally, can choose to blame the doctor. That's fine, it's your right, he clearly got that one wrong. But that's about as far as it goes, and it's not amazingly useful since with hindsight we can all be experts about everything, including prognosis of cancer, it seems.

Quote:
See how that works? Either he assumes it is correct, in which case the doctor is criminally liable for delivering false evidence, or he assumes it could be incorrect, in which case the judge should never have released him. Again, you can't argue both at the same time.


Yeah, same answer as above, but this time replace "medical" with "legal" and "doctor" with "judge".
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
▲ Page top
1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 414 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (414)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC