STI statistics and best practices?

[daylen]

You guys are suppressing the freedom of everyone by attacking this guy. What if someday one of you develops an unorthodox opinion and wishes to vent it on the Internet? This is how intolerance starts.

[Lemon]

You guys are suppressing the freedom of everyone by attacking this guy. What if someday one of you develops an unorthodox opinion and wishes to vent it on the Internet? This is how intolerance starts.

There is however a difference standard set for medical professionals, while identifying themselves as such online, at least in my country there is!

[daylen]

@Crazylemon Should rules determine behavior? Or should behavior determine rules? Or perhaps rules and behavior should be related by abductively, like theory to data? Or maybe they are unrelated?

[Lemon]

@daylen both. Rules exist to modify behaviour and are decided at least in part by what is current behaviour.

At least in my country 'bringing the profession in to disrepute' is against the duty of the Doctor and can thus be penalised. Now that definition is of course open to interpretation.

The difference between 'I am a doctor and I advise X' and 'random unverified internet man advises X' is vast

[ShriekingFeralHatred]

At least in my country 'bringing the profession in to disrepute' is against the duty of the Doctor and can thus be penalised. Now that definition is of course open to interpretation.

The difference between 'I am a doctor and I advise X' and 'random unverified internet man advises X' is vast

But nothing was advised.

Besides - are you a physician? If not, why take it upon yourself to police the internet for anyone making doctors look bad? Why go after a guy with unpopular private opinions yet appropriate professional treatment of patients and not the people getting 10,000+ hits a day advising people not to take their vaccines because doctors are evil profiteers?

[Lemon]

At least in my country 'bringing the profession in to disrepute' is against the duty of the Doctor and can thus be penalised. Now that definition is of course open to interpretation.

The difference between 'I am a doctor and I advise X' and 'random unverified internet man advises X' is vast

But nothing was advised.

I haven't said anything was, I haven't read any of the posts, deleted before I got here and I don't want to get involved in any part of the episode.

The example was to indicate one reason why the above rule is part of my countries regulatory body's rules.

[Spartan_Warrior]

On the one hand I'm almost certain Jacob is against doxxing of the sort that's going on here and I predict much of this thread will be deleted.

On the other hand, I'm a little proud of my anti-fascist brethren for going to town on what I recognized as an obvious psychopath from his first posts. The sad thing is, I don't think people like him are nearly as unique in his profession as some of you seem to believe. I'm not about to read the hate rants--I got bored of that in his first few journal posts here--but I wouldn't be surprised if some of his criticisms of the health profession are quite valid, if perhaps lacking self-awareness...

I expect to see more and more of his type of thinking out in the open.

[daylen]

@Crazylemon There is a conflict of perspective present, hence logical argument is unlikely to resolve indifferences. Consider my first comment on one particular perspective not directed towards you personally, and my second as merely a curiosity of your own perspective.

[Lemon]

@Crazylemon There is a conflict of perspective present, hence logical argument is unlikely to resolve indifferences. Consider my first comment on one particular perspective not directed towards you personally, and my second as merely a curiosity of your own perspective.

I don't take I personally at all!

The current situation I am disinclined to express an opinion.

As for the regulation in my country. It exists for a reason. Does it silence what otherwise could be valuable as a side effect? Without at doubt. Is it worth it? My governing body clearly feels so.

@hatred I am in no way out to get you.

[TopHatFox]

As far as I understand it, the first amendment in the constitution of the US protects constituents from the federal government infringing on the rights of people who say what they want, with the limitation of yelling fire in a theater or other physical threats. With that in mind, free speech still comes with immense responsibility, because there is nothing stopping a community from responding negatively to hateful, unsupported rhetoric, like the ones we discovered:

"In a lot of ways liberalism is about removing natural consequences for things like being dumb, irresponsible, black etc

It is not enough for fags to get aids, they must be mocked for it and enslaved for the rest of their days

I say I am glad they will be forced to have dangerous and crude abortions behind shady bars, because
they deserve it."

-----------------------------

I have very little tolerance for baseless hate speech like the above. At the very least, if a person introduces an unorthodox point of view, it is expected that they will need to present robust, credible sources to support their claims to the larger community, should they even be supportable.

All of that said, a few months ago I attended a statewide community gathering calling for people to "call others in" rather than "calling them out." In other words, instead of expunging the person from the community as a pariah, first give them a chance to challenge their current opinions with alternative views, should they be willing to. (In that context, it was meant to change campus "rape culture" from men who were very likely socialized to believe that being confident means not taking no for an answer, a la Trump).

Thoughts?

[halfmoon]

You guys are suppressing the freedom of everyone by attacking this guy. What if someday one of you develops an unorthodox opinion and wishes to vent it on the Internet? This is how intolerance starts.

I respectfully disagree. This person started making unprovoked statements of intolerance and bigotry on a public forum, and we responded publicly. Silence in the face of freely expressed intolerance isn't tolerance; it's tacit acceptance. Acceptance can feel like affirmation to a sociopath. I don't think that people on this forum (or anywhere) deserve to have others sit by and say nothing when they're told that their illnesses are a punishment from God. How do you think this feels to someone who has lost loved ones to AIDS, for example? Is it possible that I personally felt attacked by his statements? In fact I did.

It was only after ShreikingFeralHatred specifically expressed that bigotry on this site that I became curious and looked around at what else he might have said online. He put it out there; I'm just repeating what he stated. I don't believe he has the right to provide medical care to unsuspecting people he thinks actually deserve to be rounded up and put into camps or left to die in a back-alley abortion. I also don't for a moment believe that he magically rises above all this hatred and practices medicine with shining professionalism. Any sociopath would claim that.

Of course it's Jacob's right to delete this entire thread (sorry, Olaz!). I may not speak up here again, but I'll continue to speak up where I can. The constitution guarantees the right to free speech, but it doesn't guarantee that people will silently accept anything you say.

[daylen]

@Olaz @halfmoon The logical soundness of an argument is just one means with which to measure its validity. Deception has happened from my perspective, hence there exist the possibility of deception when in logical debate; the system upon which I have based this argument has resulted in the uncertainty of the system itself, therefore from my perspective the only option is to assume uncertainty in the validity of logic. What if there exist some other system upon which to base judgment?

This is fun. I just like to make people think, that is all. I find unorthodox perspectives interesting and personally prefer that they not be suppressed due to unpopularity. This is clearly not everyones view point; this is a good thing for me as I value diversity in thought.

[The Old Man]

I am having a hard time understanding why you are doing this.

Why? Social Justice Warriors. You were not being politically correct. Consequently, you have offended them and they are taking action by DOXX. Await the wrath of god.

[jennypenny]

Yeah, I'm a little uncomfortable with what feels like a witch hunt. I would understand if people wanted SFH temporarily or permanently banned for his comments, but is it really our job to police the world outside of the forum? We share a lot of personal information here and it might make people hesitant to do so if they thought someone who disagreed with them might come after them IRL.

A couple of years ago, someone on the forum was very unhappy with me over my posts in one of the long religion threads. They thought my Christian beliefs made me a misogynist and propagator of violence, and they were so upset they decided to continue the argument IRL. They found my email address and bombed me with thousands of nastygrams. Luckily, I had a friend who had the authority to put a stop to it before it escalated.

It's too bad the thread derailed. I thought SFH had a good point about too many medical resources being used to address lifestyle diseases buried amongst the ugly comments. People should be responsible for their own sexual health just like any other measure of health, not only for ERE purposes but to avoid being a burden on society.

[Scott 2]

But there's a witch!

The idea of the very populations that need medical care the most, finding themselves dependent upon someone with so much hate, at the very time they are most vulnerable, is sickening. Over the course of a career, that is more dangerous than some of the unhinged maniacs who have been in the news lately.

I agree doxxing is not the most constructive approach. The guy is not an isolated individual. It is a systemic problem. I am trying to move on, but this struck a nerve with me. Hate triggers hate, and I got caught in the trap.


Individual accountability for lifestyle diseases is great and important. My personal actions are largely on that side of the fence. I, however, do not object to some resources being used to care for those with lifestyle disease. I recognize my "smart" choices are largely enabled from an advantaged birth. It's not like someone goes out and says, "today I'm going to contract HIV". There's a large volume of societal factors that play into that event, and honestly, some bad luck.

[The Old Man]

@Scott 2: For promoting Doxxing I am in favor of you being banned. You have offended and triggered me!

The proper course of action when a post is considered offensive is to push the '!' button. This button exists for reporting posts. LEARN to use the button.

[jennypenny]

@scott2--I wasn't trying to come down on you. I understand your feelings. I just worry that people could take it too far.

I also think that it's ok to allocate some resources to lifestyle diseases but I wonder if we're allocating too many at the moment.

[halfmoon]

Yeah, I'm a little uncomfortable with what feels like a witch hunt. I would understand if people wanted SFH temporarily or permanently banned for his comments, but is it really our job to police the world outside of the forum? We share a lot of personal information here and it might make people hesitant to do so if they thought someone who disagreed with them might come after them IRL.

@jennypenny,

I'm genuinely sorry that you're uncomfortable, and that your discomfort invokes memories of being stalked.

I lurked on this forum for a year before joining, and it's the only one I've ever posted on. I see this as Jacob's salon (to borrow 7WB5's term) or maybe a small neighborhood. If someone in my neighborhood started posting signs on his lawn saying that the gays next door deserved to die from AIDS, I would speak up. If I found that this person had been traveling around to other neighborhoods burning crosses on people's lawns, I would tell my neighbors so they could understand the element in their midst.

When ShriekingFeralHatred first posted comments on this thread about people deserving disease because they violate his religion, I felt sick. DH and I watched friends and coworkers die of AIDS in the eighties, and the smug idea that they somehow deserved this fate…it’s still hard to find words.

This seemed like a place that wouldn't stand by quietly and practice 'tolerance' of aggressive intolerance. I re-read Jacob's rules of forum conduct and PM'd him expressing my concerns. I obviously don't understand how to PM properly, because that message is still sitting in my outbox.

I considered just deleting all of my own posts and accepting that this wasn’t the neighborhood for me. I finally decided that was the coward’s way out. I never intended to pursue ShriekingFeralHatred in real life, but I don’t regret pointing out the totality of his bigotry to people who have welcomed him into this forum.

One last thought: imagine for a moment that ShriekingFeralHatred was a police officer instead of a doctor. Would it be okay for him to have the power of life and death over people he believes to be unworthy of life? I don’t really see a difference.

[jennypenny]

@halfmoon--Please read my post again. I never said anyone here should feel compelled to tolerate anything they find disagreeable (although I do find the acceptance of intolerance towards perceived intolerance ironic to say the least). What I said -- and I stand by my statement -- is that I don't like using information garnered here on the forum to pursue people off the forum regardless of the reason.

This has nothing to do with SFH or my feelings about some of what he's said. I just don't see how we can communicate in the manner to which we've become accustomed if we're all afraid to post personal information that might put us in the crosshairs of someone else who's offended about something. We're a diverse group with sometimes diametrically opposed viewpoints so disagreements are bound to happen. Shouting down others or trying to bully them off the forum is an ineffective way to deal with it and only leads to discord, which has been quite evident of late.

Jacob will make the final determination about what's acceptable wrt SFH's posts. It's Christmas so it's not surprising he's not checking his PM's, and I'm sorry he'll have to come back to deal with this. I think it's unreasonable to expect him or any mods to interrupt their holiday to deal with something that can wait a day or two to be resolved.

[slowtraveler]

@JennyPenny

I'm curious if you read his first posts. They've since been removed but it was more hatred and wishing death upon others than intolerance. Someone with a medical duty to protect others wishing death upon interracial or homosexual couples is more likely to cause more harm than help in that situation.

Also, while I agree that the government spends too much on many issues, lifestyle diseases kill more than anything else-heart disease, stroke, cancer are the biggest killers after age 30 and lifestyle often contributes to these.

The US government spends over $500 million per death from terrorism while spending a fraction of that for what actually causes the most death.
http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-sp ... nsecurity/