A change of opinion...

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:37 am

Irrelevant

All that is required is an involuntary personal risk even if it is a risk to catch a cold while saving another's life which this most certainly constitutes.

Post by **Ddrak** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:09 am

Rsak wrote:Irrelevant

wtf?

Dd

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:29 am

Hee hee! Rsak's so precious.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:34 am

Beek,

Rsak is NOT a brilliant troll. There is plenty of info in its posts to confirm that.

Marinoni Oakenshield · Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:50 am

One entry found for parasite.

Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:11 pm

Do you not understand the definition of the word?

It does not matter that the law does not require the risking of one's own life for your no law REQURES statement to be proven false. It only has to show that risks are mandated to save another's life.

JamiesanTGrauerwolf · Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:25 pm

Mandated by who? The government? Aren't government mandates the same thing as laws?

Do you understand what mandate means?

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:42 pm

The Government.

See above.

Of course, this is why I quoted a law.

Due to the consistent use of proper context the obvious answer would be yes.

Post by **Ddrak** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:54 pm

It does not matter that the law does not require the risking of one's own life for your no law REQURES statement to be proven false.

I'll say it again... wtf?

Dd

Beestyall · Post by **Beestyall** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:58 pm

Ddrak wrote:
It does not matter that the law does not require the risking of one's own life for your no law REQURES statement to be proven false.
I'll say it again... wtf?

Dd

Quit feeding the assmonkey Dd. I mean it's fun to rattle the poo-flinger's cage once in a while, get him all riled up in nutso fevor, but without an ignore function, it just makes peoples eyes bleed.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:27 pm

For the temporally and logically challenged:

Ddrak wrote:And there is no law on the books that REQUIRES you to take involuntary personal risks to save another's life. Thank goodness.

Then

I wrote:There are laws requiring citizens to stop and render aid to accident victims.

With the advent of communicable diseases such as HIV your statement is not entirely accurate.

And you requested the law to be pointed out.

Ddrak wrote:Point out the law that requires someone to risk HIV infection at an accident scene.

To which I provided the law you requested.

I wrote: What Florida Law says about...
Duty to give information and render aid

FSS 316.062 Duty to give information and render aid. Requires the following:

1. Name of driver.
2. Address of driver.
3. And the registration number of the vehicle he is driving.
4. And shall upon request and if available exhibit his license or permit to drive, to any person injured in such accident or to the driver of occupant of or person attending any vehicle or other property damaged in the accident.
5. All of the above information is required to be given to any police officer investigating the accident.
6. Driver shall render to any person injured in the accident reasonable assistance, including the carrying, or making arrangements for the carrying, of such person to a physician, surgeon, or hospital for medical or surgical treatment if it is apparent that treatment is necessary, or if such carrying is requested by the injured person.

To which you raised this objection:

Ddrak wrote: "Reasonable assistance" does not and never has included risking ones own life.

Since when you stated that no law requires involuntary risks to save another's life you failed to restrict the involuntary risks to ones which would endanger the life of the rescuee. The objection may or may not be accurate but for the purpose of this discussion it has no pertinence to your statement that no law requires involuntary personal risks to save another's life.

The Florida law documented here invalidates your statement that there are no laws requiring involuntary personal risks to save another's life. The theory that since there are no such laws to create one to force mothers to bear their children would be wrong. Since there are in fact laws that force involuntary personal risks to save other's lives the logic of the statement is flawed.

Whether it would be right or wrong to force mothers to bear their children (criminalize abortion) will have to be decided based upon another logical reason or theoretical supposition.

Akhbarali · Post by **Akhbarali** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 pm

Ddrak wrote: I'll say it again... wtf?

Dd

/insert chimp photo

Akhbar

Post by **Ddrak** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:43 pm

Rsak,

I asked you point out a law that required you to risk HIV infection. You failed to do so. You're the one who put the restriction of scope in - not me so don't go crying when you get your ass handed to you on the scope restriction YOU proposed.

Dd

Barious · Post by **Barious** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:55 pm

I am a firm supporter of passing a new, retroactive abortion law. I feel that any child under the age of 18 can be retroactively aborted if they become a leech on society. All those wanna be gangbanger kids, brain dead junkie teenagers, kids with less than 3.0 grade averages and members of the Britney Spears website would all fall under this new law.

-Barious

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:53 pm

I asked you point out a law that required you to risk HIV infection. You failed to do so.

I completely disagree, however it is immaterial to the topic at hand.

Your statement offers no such restrictions as I have pointed out and only requires involuntary personal risks and the law quoted most certainly mandates such risks are taken to save the lives of others.

And I never restricted the scope to HIV only to communicable diseases. These may or may not have death as a risk so requirement for a law requiring the risk of HIV infection is not necessary.

Twist and squirm some more, but the facts of the matter is that your statement was fallacious and you were called on it.

pen · Post by **pen** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:59 pm

I am a firm supporter of passing a new, retroactive abortion law. I feel that any child under the age of 18 can be retroactively aborted if they become a leech on society. All those wanna be gangbanger kids, brain dead junkie teenagers, kids with less than 3.0 grade averages and members of the Britney Spears website would all fall under this new law.

Then we'd be right back to low population problems on the servers.

Post by **Ddrak** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:24 pm

the law quoted most certainly mandates such risks are taken to save the lives of others.

No, it doesn't.

Dd

Akhbarali · Post by **Akhbarali** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:30 pm

Kulaf wrote:The key words there are "reasonable assistance". If someone is bleedking like a stuck pig I am going to "making arrangements" for them to ride in an ambulance.

Kulaf even spelled it out for him in perfectly plain English. It has to be trolling, nobody is this stupid.

Akhbar

Fetten · Post by **Fetten** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:34 pm

Rule #1 when performing life saving actions.
Assess the situation to be sure the scene is secure as not to cause unneccessary or additional harm to the rescuee or to yourself.

That would be for anything that may potentially harm either party

Rule #2 Find out as much relevant information about the rescuee as possible to determine best course of emergency treatment during initial evaluation of sustained injuries.

That would be determining if the patient has any allergies, diseases or conditions that may cause more problems for the patient or rescuer. Once those things are discovered then the risks for both parties can be mitigated as best as possible. For those things that can't be determined the rescuer takes any means neccessary to reduce infection or further injury to either party. EMT's, Paramedics, Lifeguards and Search and Rescue personnel civilan and military are taught and adhere to those as best they can given the circumstances. No one is required to risk their own well being in order to save lives. It just kind of happens with the devotion to the job or the ideal of the job

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:40 pm

Yes, it does Ddrak.

Your required presence there until an ambulance arrives or your transportation involves risk.