Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567032 Nov 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
All I have are your words. If you claim to be willing to send a person to the ER for nakedness in front of your child, how am I to know you differently?
Perhaps you should engage in less hyperbole with respect to violence if you don't actually mean it?
So nobody should engage in hyperbole or exaggeration because some people will take it literally?

Other people got the point. They even noticed I ended my post with pretty much the golden rule that people can only exercise their rights if it doesn't infringe on someone else's.

I assumed since the conversation was about what was best for a child you would have known I wouldn't beat a man in front of a 4-year old. But in the future when I post to you I will make sure to preface or qualify everything I say.(by everything I don't actually mean everything but rather cases of exaggeration or hyperbole) Wow, this should be fun.(that comment was meant to be more sarcastic than literal)

Still, it was a pretty long post I made. I was surprised you had no response to all the points in it other than that one comment. What do you feel about a child thinking it is ok for an adult stranger to be naked in front of him as it relates to the higher potential for abuse?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567033 Nov 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Look, all you are doing here is telling me that your version of cultural politeness is moral.
.
So what? Why should I assume that your version of your culture is correct above all others?
It doesn't take any critical thinking to arrive at your position.
.
And, just so we're sure here, I agree with you - well, I agree with the straw man position you set up. I'm not comfortable with (men) people grabbing their genitals in public. I don't want to see public pissing and shitting, and I most certainly don't want to see public self-stimulating. But you've offered no objective reasons for not liking that other than that you don't like that.
.
And the really strange thing is that to argue your point, you didn't bother addressing the question of public nudity, or the news piece to which I was referring, but required to grossly extend my position to a point which I would never agree. Do you believe you are making a cogent, rational argument rather than a ridiculous caricature of the simple position that I took, that nudity was not grotesque?
.
I mean, seriously - this is beneath you, to argue in this manner rather than simply admit you aren't comfortable with nudity.
I gave you plenty of reasons, especially as it relates to the potential of abuse. I simply got into more detail later as I never thought I would have to explain to someone why an adult stranger shouldn't be allowed to hang his nuts in a child's face. I admit, you caught me by surprise on that one and my initial response was more out of disbelief. The explanations which I didn't think were necessary as they are self-evident came later

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#567034 Nov 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
You obsession with me has reached hysterical proportions
Hey, if you got nothing better to do be my guest. Just tuck your nuts in-between your legs first. If you are going to act like beotch you might as well look the part
~snicker
*And no that is not an insult towards women. In this scenario it is to "men" who act like little girls who got their feelings hurt and now can't let go.
Are you saying that "little girls" are stereotypically more sensitive than men or that it is unmanly to have feelings? I am not sure which you meant, could you clarify?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567035 Nov 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Tide - you did a better job here, my friend. I don't take too well to being called a pedophile by a person who is frightened of the human body, so I responded with a fair bit of anger.
.
All I can say is, when I calm down, it will be good to think of how frightened, angered and paranoid some people are.
Nobody called you a pedophile. That is simply dishonest. In fact I even went out of my way to make it clear I was doing nothing of the sort. Please don't lie about things I have said and then characterize me based on your lies.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567036 Nov 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<someone else's nudity>
<quoted text>
.
You are now calling nudity "child molestation."
.
You have now accused me of agreeing that public nudity is the same as pulling a child aside and showing them your genitals.
.
You are making shitty, stupid arguments.
.
No, paranoid idiot, being naked in public is not the same as pulling a child aside and saying "want a lollipop?" What the fcuk is wrong with you that you would equate those things?
.
I don't even support public nudity and I can see the difference between your scare mongering and someone else's desire to walk in the wind.
.
What the hell is wrong with you that you would equate pedophilia with being naked???
You seem to have reading comprehension issues so I will re-post

". I am not saying by any means you are a child molester, I want that to be very clear. But your rationalizations sound the same. "Oh it is not abuse, it is love". "everybody has genitalia so what is wrong with me showing mine to a child?"

And yes someone walking around nude around children is showing them their genitals, whether that was their original intent or desired intent is irrelevant. That is the outcome. And YOU were the one who said who cares if I child sees genitals of a stranger because they have genitals of their own. That is the stupidest argument i have heard for anything.

If someone walks around naked and a child can see them, are they or are they not showing their genitals to a child, along with anybody else who can see them? Yes or No

Please try to answer the question as i have a feeling you will avoid it

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567037 Nov 29, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Are you saying that "little girls" are stereotypically more sensitive than men or that it is unmanly to have feelings? I am not sure which you meant, could you clarify?
No, I am saying calling a man a beotch is not comparing him to a woman but rather is a commentary on the type of "man" he is. Or in this case, the inability to act like one. To me a man should be secure enough with himself that he isn't always sucking up to people for validation. He shouldn't be so desperate for validation in his own mind that he tells people they should consider how they post because "we are watching you" meaning that others will form an opinion based on that which implies that should mean enough to me where it would change what I say. And a man isn't so bent out of shape over an internet chat-room that he goes into a week-long obsession spanning multiple threads replying to all my posts.

To me, that is the definition of a male beotch

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567038 Nov 29, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's take the Yanomami as an example here. They run around naked all the time - the kids and the adults. Pedophilia was so rare in that culture that they had no word for it before the French linguist Jacques Lizot entered into their culture, ostensibly to study their language, but actually to engage in sexual relationships with mostly young boys.
Now the word for "pedophilia" and "forbidden anal sex with children" in Yanomami is "Lizot."
Given that they had lived that way for thousands of years and weren't overly familiar with pedophilia, as we are, it's a counter example to the position you express above. In fact, you'd have to point to a single culture whose members live naked and demonstrate that pedophilia increases as a result for your argument to be valid. I cannot think of a single one, but perhaps you know of one.
In my opinion, Lizot should be charged and jailed, but he remains free.
I am glad I don't have the empirical evidence to provide you since the only way we could know is to take a society that started with cloths and then compare the abuse rate once they went naked. It is a preposterous request.

Common sense dictates it is a bad thing. A pedophile will try to convince a child it is ok to be naked around him or that it is ok for him to be naked around a child. That is normally the first and biggest obstacle. You would eliminate that obstacle for them. Yet you don't think it would increase abuse. Bizarre. Tell ya what, if you want your kids to see strangers nude then that is up to you. Maybe you will win parent-of-the-year and I am the one who has it all twisted. But I don't and I have to imagine almost all of society, other than pederasts and the small minority you are in that just sees nothing wrong with it, would agree with me.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567039 Nov 29, 2012
Edit Hiding

Meant to say started with clothes, not cloths

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#567040 Nov 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad I don't have the empirical evidence to provide you since the only way we could know is to take a society that started with cloths and then compare the abuse rate once they went naked. It is a preposterous request.
Common sense dictates it is a bad thing. A pedophile will try to convince a child it is ok to be naked around him or that it is ok for him to be naked around a child. That is normally the first and biggest obstacle. You would eliminate that obstacle for them. Yet you don't think it would increase abuse. Bizarre. Tell ya what, if you want your kids to see strangers nude then that is up to you. Maybe you will win parent-of-the-year and I am the one who has it all twisted. But I don't and I have to imagine almost all of society, other than pederasts and the small minority you are in that just sees nothing wrong with it, would agree with me.
Yo amigo

Pedophiles' biggest problem is access.

I am not a parent, but of course when I become a parent, I would of course limit the contact between my children and most adults. The adults I would trust them with, would be people I know *well*- like close family memebers and friends.

In that case, the possibility of meeting with such a person is nearly nullified.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567041 Nov 29, 2012
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
what I like most about you,
is that you are christian
What I like most about you is that you finally starting wearing your depends under-garments. Society already has to endure all your other offensive qualities like bigotry and hate, no reason you should be disturbing to all the senses

Are you ever going to explain that story you made up about all these times Christians have gotten in your face and told you to go to hell and that is why you want it to be a crime that requires incarceration? I do so desperately want to believe you aren't that pathetic that you would make up that entire scenario or that you weren't talking about online encounters as that would make you crazy.

Please regale me with your recollection of these events. Where did they take place? And what started them?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567042 Nov 29, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Yo amigo
Pedophiles' biggest problem is access.
I am not a parent, but of course when I become a parent, I would of course limit the contact between my children and most adults. The adults I would trust them with, would be people I know *well*- like close family memebers and friends.
In that case, the possibility of meeting with such a person is nearly nullified.
Adults have access to children quite a bit.

Still, you aren't really arguing the ranking are you? It is not like if it is 1A instead of 1 on the list of obstacles it makes it any better

You are a parent. yes or no, if your children are young or when they were, would you want them thinking it is ok for a stranger to be naked in front of them?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567043 Nov 29, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Yo amigo
Pedophiles' biggest problem is access.
I am not a parent, but of course when I become a parent, I would of course limit the contact between my children and most adults. The adults I would trust them with, would be people I know *well*- like close family memebers and friends.
In that case, the possibility of meeting with such a person is nearly nullified.
Sorry, didn't see you said you weren't a parent. But same question if you were.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#567044 Nov 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I am saying calling a man a beotch is not comparing him to a woman but rather is a commentary on the type of "man" he is. Or in this case, the inability to act like one. To me a man should be secure enough with himself that he isn't always sucking up to people for validation. He shouldn't be so desperate for validation in his own mind that he tells people they should consider how they post because "we are watching you" meaning that others will form an opinion based on that which implies that should mean enough to me where it would change what I say. And a man isn't so bent out of shape over an internet chat-room that he goes into a week-long obsession spanning multiple threads replying to all my posts.
To me, that is the definition of a male beotch
Just askin'

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#567045 Nov 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Adults have access to children quite a bit.
Still, you aren't really arguing the ranking are you? It is not like if it is 1A instead of 1 on the list of obstacles it makes it any better
You are a parent. yes or no, if your children are young or when they were, would you want them thinking it is ok for a stranger to be naked in front of them?
Not a parent.

However, as for your question - no. I am not a nudist.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#567046 Nov 29, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Why is it "stupid" to dent high BP meds? My BP was something like 145/105, the doc tried to prescribe me meds (the easy way out). I flat out told him no, I'll fix it myself. In just a few months, I had it down to a better rate. It's held there for many years now.

I didn't "need" medication.
Famous last words.

You're the kind of patient that doctors try to avoid. The problem is that when I treated someone like you, I was responsible for your decisions as well (by which I mean your counterpart in my practice). You might think that when the widow sues after the stroke that your behavior would be my defense. But it wouldn't. The physician is always 100% responsible if he accepts the patient's judgments, even if he objects in the charts and indicates an effort to get the patient to change.

Of course the patient never kept adequate records. I never knew when this med was discontinued or that one cut back, what the blood pressure was before and after the modification, what the heart sounded like in response to the change, nor even if the measurement had been taken properly - posture and recent activity matter, where and how the cuff is fixed, any recent caffeine or fever, etc.- or if they had been repeated and confirmed.

And now there is the infamous pay-for-performance (P4P) model of physician compensation, which is outcome based. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_for_performa... :

"Pay for performance is an emerging movement in health insurance (initially in Britain and United States). Providers under this arrangement are rewarded for meeting pre-established targets for delivery of healthcare services. This is a fundamental change from fee for service payment.

"Also known as "P4P" or “value-based purchasing,” this payment model rewards physicians, hospitals, medical groups, and other healthcare providers for meeting certain performance measures for quality and efficiency. Disincentives, such as eliminating payments for negative consequences of care (medical errors) or increased costs, have also been proposed."

By this model, I might not get paid - or even lose income - because of you and your choices. Sure, you could lose your life, or the use of your body, but that's the price of that kind of freedom. I don't see why I would subject myself to the liability.

Patients like you also take more time than a compliant patient. A follow-up visit with a typical well-controlled hyperstenive patient is as long as the chatting. The professional part is looking at a measurement done before I came into the exam room, and a brief history and physical. With you, there's time spent trying to figure out what you did, and time wasted trying to teach you enough medicine to help you realize that you needed to relent.

In the end, providing continued oversight of such mismanagement is a threat to the physician, as the ongoing relationship can be read as tacit consent, depending on the state, and if it ever gets to trial, the mood of the judge and jury.

So I just fired such patients. I explained that with him making medical decisions, it was as if I had consulted a quack to co-manage his case, one that didn't know or understand the goals of therapy, couldn't make informed decisions, wouldn't keep adequate record, or even know how to use a real sphygmomanometer.

You may not care, but I thought you should know.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567047 Nov 29, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>Just askin'
No problem

I knew going in that had the potential to be taken in a way I didn't mean and even my original explanation was a little ambiguous.

I am actually glad you asked as it gave me the opportunity to think of a better way to explain it. I get in moods where I feel like "cutting loose" a little so-to-speak on Topix as the silliness sometimes just seems to call for replies in kind. But all playing aside I am against all forms of prejudice and would not want to appear to be sexist or misogynistic.

I respect men who are capable of accessing their emotions. The old adage "boys don't cry" and that whole mentality is simply denying our own humanity. Some things warrant tears. Topix however it not one of them:)

(T) Peace

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#567048 Nov 29, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a parent.
However, as for your question - no. I am not a nudist.
I am not sure that most nudists wouldn't agree as well. But I could be wrong as I don't know any or even if i did I would have no way of knowing if their opinions mirrored the majority. But I would hope that even nudists would agree it is one thing for adults to feel they have no reason to hide their bodies among other adults who feel the same way and quite another to be naked in front of someone else's child. Especially if that child's parents were opposed to it.

I could care less what consenting adults do with other consenting adults...within reason. But a child's brain is under-developed. They are very open to suggestion and easily influenced. They don't have the intellect to properly defend against predators. It is our job as parents, citizens, and human beings to do whatever we can to keep children safe. Planting the idea in their head it is ok to be around strangers who are naked imo would be an abject failure in that department.

I have nothing against nudists. Heck, I almost respect it as it takes a heck of a lot of confidence and breaks from traditional norms of a society that makes people feel bad about their bodies. But it goes from innocent expression among consenting adults to something very wrong when subjecting kids to it.

There are many things like that. If people want to masturbate in the privacy of their homes be my guest. If they want to form a masturbating community of all adults where they sit around on their lawns and masturbate, well weird as that would be, hey whatever floats their boat. But to do where a kid can see? No freaking way. Not you but anybody in general that thinks this is about a personal hangup or some sort of sexual repression is missing the point. There are simply different rules when it involves children.

(T) Peace

(T) Peace

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#567049 Nov 29, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not sure that most nudists wouldn't agree as well. But I could be wrong as I don't know any or even if i did I would have no way of knowing if their opinions mirrored the majority. But I would hope that even nudists would agree it is one thing for adults to feel they have no reason to hide their bodies among other adults who feel the same way and quite another to be naked in front of someone else's child. Especially if that child's parents were opposed to it.
I could care less what consenting adults do with other consenting adults...within reason. But a child's brain is under-developed. They are very open to suggestion and easily influenced. They don't have the intellect to properly defend against predators. It is our job as parents, citizens, and human beings to do whatever we can to keep children safe. Planting the idea in their head it is ok to be around strangers who are naked imo would be an abject failure in that department.
I have nothing against nudists. Heck, I almost respect it as it takes a heck of a lot of confidence and breaks from traditional norms of a society that makes people feel bad about their bodies. But it goes from innocent expression among consenting adults to something very wrong when subjecting kids to it.
There are many things like that. If people want to masturbate in the privacy of their homes be my guest. If they want to form a masturbating community of all adults where they sit around on their lawns and masturbate, well weird as that would be, hey whatever floats their boat. But to do where a kid can see? No freaking way. Not you but anybody in general that thinks this is about a personal hangup or some sort of sexual repression is missing the point. There are simply different rules when it involves children.
(T) Peace
(T) Peace
It's all a society thing.

A hundred years ago, it was okay to marry a girl at 15 or 16 years of age. Hell, four hundred years ago, one could marry a girl barely in her teens.

Today those practises seem very wrong and vile, but in those times they were the norm. Same with nudists. If people can avoid exposing their children to sexual predators, I believe they may decide in what environment they raise those children.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#567050 Nov 29, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. So I ficked up the word.
Sue me.:)
Or do me
Which you've done before. You no more know the difference between the words "conscious" and "conscience" than you know the difference between the words "race" and "nationality".

And gee- you also posted that you are very drunk and your lady's passed out.......you post way too many times here about being drunk, RR.

I know you will deny this, but those who have a drinking problem denying that they do is typical of those who have a drinking problem.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#567051 Nov 29, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Famous last words.
You're the kind of patient that doctors try to avoid. The problem is that when I treated someone like you, I was responsible for your decisions as well (by which I mean your counterpart in my practice). You might think that when the widow sues after the stroke that your behavior would be my defense. But it wouldn't. The physician is always 100% responsible if he accepts the patient's judgments, even if he objects in the charts and indicates an effort to get the patient to change.
Of course the patient never kept adequate records. I never knew when this med was discontinued or that one cut back, what the blood pressure was before and after the modification, what the heart sounded like in response to the change, nor even if the measurement had been taken properly - posture and recent activity matter, where and how the cuff is fixed, any recent caffeine or fever, etc.- or if they had been repeated and confirmed.

Patients like you also take more time than a compliant patient. A follow-up visit with a typical well-controlled hyperstenive patient is as long as the chatting. The professional part is looking at a measurement done before I came into the exam room, and a brief history and physical. With you, there's time spent trying to figure out what you did, and time wasted trying to teach you enough medicine to help you realize that you needed to relent.
In the end, providing continued oversight of such mismanagement is a threat to the physician, as the ongoing relationship can be read as tacit consent, depending on the state, and if it ever gets to trial, the mood of the judge and jury.
So I just fired such patients. I explained that with him making medical decisions, it was as if I had consulted a quack to co-manage his case, one that didn't know or understand the goals of therapy, couldn't make informed decisions, wouldn't keep adequate record, or even know how to use a real sphygmomanometer.
You may not care, but I thought you should know.
Very interesting and very informative, IANS......

No doubt it is frustrating for many doctors to have to deal with patients who make it clear that they are their own worst enemy.

And no doubt it is those patients who are the first to cry "foul" and blame the doctor when they develop medical problems that could have been avoided had they listened to their doctors to begin with.

I am not at all the type of person who thinks all illnesses should be treated by simply popping a pill and I know what the breakdown is for what ails us, which is this:

50% of what ails us is due to our own lifestyles- our diets, drinking habits, exercise or lack thereof, etc.

20% of what ails us is genetic.

20% of what ails us is environmental- water, air and land pollution.

And only 10% of what ails us is simply the luck of the draw with it not being attributed to any of the above.

But for that 50%, a responsible doctor will tell a patient what they can personally do themselves to cure what ails them and of course, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

But even if a patient diligently does change their lifestyle habits, there are many instances in which it either isn't enough or is too late and at that point, medication is often the only way to treat symptoms and to prevent the problem from becoming more serious or even life threatening.

I can certainly see why you would "fire" patients- not only do you not need to risk the liability, patients who refuse to cooperate with their doctors are wasting not only their own time, but their doctor's time as well.

Of course, it's easy for RR to say now that he will never take medication for any health issues.......not at all sure that would be the case if it was a question of him living or dying without taking what would be life-saving medication.

Your post edited for space.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 10 min June VanDerMark 560,284
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 20 min andet1987 5,146
2003 Silverado 2500HD REDUCED ENGINE POWER (Dec '09) 42 min Brooker 131
Scientific proof for God's existence 53 min Just Think 46
Gay snapchat names 1 hr A Noted Ferrerman 166
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 1 hr yon 4,848
America's Most Dangerous Corruption 1 hr Protester 4
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 2 hr dirty white boy- 605,292
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 7 hr hpcaban 441,809
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 7 hr YellowPissreality 265,393
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 19 hr Freebird USA 175,775
More from around the web