That would also be unethical yes, and also a felony for everyone involved.
Advertisement
by Page » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:44 pm
Romextly wrote:Page wrote:
The First Amendment has nothing to do with abuse and manipulation. You can stand on a soap box in the park every day and preach about whatever you want but if you use words to emotionally destroy a child, that isn't free speech.
As I responded to Neutraligon, I states they should be tried as others who misinforms
by Necroghastia » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 pm
by Xelsis » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 pm
Genivaria wrote:Xelsis wrote:The same people who call conversion therapy, and we are talking about the kind that is just that, simply talking, 'torture', tend to be the same people who think it is perfectly acceptable to provide permanently body-altering hormones to children under the age of consent.
The law that was struck down explicitly provides an exception to allow for counselling to "provide assistance" to "undergoing gender transition". That, more than anything else, is 'conversion therapy.'
You're trying to equate pseudo-science to accepted and proven science.
So called 'conversion therapy' is pseudo-science.
Tsaivao wrote:Xelsis wrote:The same people who call conversion therapy, and we are talking about the kind that is just that, simply talking, 'torture', tend to be the same people who think it is perfectly acceptable to provide permanently body-altering hormones to children under the age of consent.
The law that was struck down explicitly provides an exception to allow for counselling to "provide assistance" to "undergoing gender transition". That, more than anything else, is 'conversion therapy.'
Got any citations for anyone who advocates forcefully injecting minors with hormones? Because no one I know of in my circle would support that either, but I still think conversion therapy is torture. So am I a statistical outlier or are you just making up a strawman?
How about if we had gay conversion therapy, in which we convince straight people to become gay through these same verbal methods. Would this sit well with you?
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 pm
by Romextly » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:45 pm
Tsaivao wrote:Romextly wrote:As I stated before, they should be clear on what they are doing, or else they are doing fraud and should be tried as a normal person who misinforms people of their product
So by this logic, if I advertise my services as a programmer and I promise to make a computer "run 10% more efficiently" and then I accomplish this by deleting the majority of the data on the hard-drive, then I'm not doing something unethical? Because I never explicitly lied, a computer will run faster if you give it more data to work with
by Geneviev » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:46 pm
by Galloism » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:46 pm
by Tsaivao » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:48 pm
Romextly wrote:Tsaivao wrote:So by this logic, if I advertise my services as a programmer and I promise to make a computer "run 10% more efficiently" and then I accomplish this by deleting the majority of the data on the hard-drive, then I'm not doing something unethical? Because I never explicitly lied, a computer will run faster if you give it more data to work with
You literally just said the opposite of what I meant
OPERATION TEN-GO: Tsaivao Authority confirms wormhole drives based on alien designs are functional | Gen. Tsaosin: "Operational integrity is the key to our success against the xenic threat. In a week, we will have already infiltrated into their world." | All leaders of Tsaivao send personal farewells to Ten-Go special forces unit Tsaikantan-8
by Neutraligon » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:48 pm
Galloism wrote:Reading the case it looks like it's the carveout in the law that's causing the court to go against this. Because the ordinance is not content neutral.
They reference heavily where doctors in Florida were prohibited to ask their patients if they owned guns, and that rule was struck down - because the doctor could ask if the patient owned anything else, IE, a dresser, or a scythe. Therefore, this was a restriction on the content of the doctor's speech - not a regulation on the practice of medicine per se.
Here, we have a similar thing. The ordinance restricted counseling based on the content. Counseling someone to try and "push" them into being gay was explicitly protected by law, while counseling someone to try and "push" them to be straight was explicitly banned by law. This means you cannot know if they broke the law or not without analyzing the content of their speech, and this means it gets strict scrutiny by law.
To help understand why this line was struck, imagine two laws:
1) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic
2) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic if they are pro-choice protestors
The first one is a general restriction on groups, and would likely face intermediate scrutiny. The second one is a regulation of content and thus receives strict scrutiny.
by Bluepillar » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:49 pm
by Greed and Death » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:49 pm
by Geneviev » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:49 pm
by Page » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:49 pm
Galloism wrote:Reading the case it looks like it's the carveout in the law that's causing the court to go against this. Because the ordinance is not content neutral.
They reference heavily where doctors in Florida were prohibited to ask their patients if they owned guns, and that rule was struck down - because the doctor could ask if the patient owned anything else, IE, a dresser, or a scythe. Therefore, this was a restriction on the content of the doctor's speech - not a regulation on the practice of medicine per se.
Here, we have a similar thing. The ordinance restricted counseling based on the content. Counseling someone to try and "push" them into being gay was explicitly protected by law, while counseling someone to try and "push" them to be straight was explicitly banned by law. This means you cannot know if they broke the law or not without analyzing the content of their speech, and this means it gets strict scrutiny by law.
To help understand why this line was struck, imagine two laws:
1) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic
2) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic if they are pro-choice protestors
The first one is a general restriction on groups, and would likely face intermediate scrutiny. The second one is a regulation of content and thus receives strict scrutiny.
by Galloism » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:49 pm
Neutraligon wrote:Galloism wrote:Reading the case it looks like it's the carveout in the law that's causing the court to go against this. Because the ordinance is not content neutral.
They reference heavily where doctors in Florida were prohibited to ask their patients if they owned guns, and that rule was struck down - because the doctor could ask if the patient owned anything else, IE, a dresser, or a scythe. Therefore, this was a restriction on the content of the doctor's speech - not a regulation on the practice of medicine per se.
Here, we have a similar thing. The ordinance restricted counseling based on the content. Counseling someone to try and "push" them into being gay was explicitly protected by law, while counseling someone to try and "push" them to be straight was explicitly banned by law. This means you cannot know if they broke the law or not without analyzing the content of their speech, and this means it gets strict scrutiny by law.
To help understand why this line was struck, imagine two laws:
1) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic
2) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic if they are pro-choice protestors
The first one is a general restriction on groups, and would likely face intermediate scrutiny. The second one is a regulation of content and thus receives strict scrutiny.
So what does this mean for the actual law banning conversion therapy on minors?
by Romextly » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:50 pm
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:50 pm
Greed and Death wrote:For those wondering this is only about talk only therapy.
by Tsaivao » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:50 pm
Greed and Death wrote:For those wondering this is only about talk only therapy.
So electrocuting your kids for being turned on while looking at members of the same sex is still banned as are the other medieval cures that have been created.
OPERATION TEN-GO: Tsaivao Authority confirms wormhole drives based on alien designs are functional | Gen. Tsaosin: "Operational integrity is the key to our success against the xenic threat. In a week, we will have already infiltrated into their world." | All leaders of Tsaivao send personal farewells to Ten-Go special forces unit Tsaikantan-8
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:50 pm
Tsaivao wrote:Greed and Death wrote:For those wondering this is only about talk only therapy.
So electrocuting your kids for being turned on while looking at members of the same sex is still banned as are the other medieval cures that have been created.
Verbal abuse is still abuse. You can traumatize people with words the same way you can with an iron rod, it's just harder to see the side-effects of it.
by Greed and Death » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:50 pm
Neutraligon wrote:Galloism wrote:Reading the case it looks like it's the carveout in the law that's causing the court to go against this. Because the ordinance is not content neutral.
They reference heavily where doctors in Florida were prohibited to ask their patients if they owned guns, and that rule was struck down - because the doctor could ask if the patient owned anything else, IE, a dresser, or a scythe. Therefore, this was a restriction on the content of the doctor's speech - not a regulation on the practice of medicine per se.
Here, we have a similar thing. The ordinance restricted counseling based on the content. Counseling someone to try and "push" them into being gay was explicitly protected by law, while counseling someone to try and "push" them to be straight was explicitly banned by law. This means you cannot know if they broke the law or not without analyzing the content of their speech, and this means it gets strict scrutiny by law.
To help understand why this line was struck, imagine two laws:
1) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic
2) Gathering of persons over 25 is barred within 100 feet of an abortion clinic if they are pro-choice protestors
The first one is a general restriction on groups, and would likely face intermediate scrutiny. The second one is a regulation of content and thus receives strict scrutiny.
So what does this mean for the actual law banning conversion therapy on minors?
by Bluepillar » Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:50 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Burnt Calculators, Catboiistan, Deblar, Duvniask, HISPIDA, Ifreann, Neonian Imperium, Oceasia, Post War America, Sarolandia, Solstice Isle, Trump Almighty, Umeria, Zandos, Zurkerx
Advertisement