The charges might also have been dropped because offering them their own tent and then prosecuting them for using it could constitute entrapment.
An interesting legal question there... however, entrapment has to be such that the officer pressures the individual into committing a crime that he would otherwise not have done.
If an undercover officer and a "friend" are outside of a supermarket, and the friend says "hey, give me your gun, so I can go rob the store", and the officer gives him an unloaded weapon, then the friend can be charged with burglary with a lethal weapon. However, if the friend just says "hey, I'm going to go rob this store," and the officer says "hey, here have my gun." Even then, it's not necessarily entrapment. If the friend just takes it without a second thought, then still not entrapment. However, if the friend goes, "uh, no, I don't think so. That would just worsen the crime." and the cop says, "hey, no, dude, you gotta use the gun or they won't listen to you." Then that's entrapment.
The only way it could be entrapment was if the guy was not willing to commit the crime unless the sheriff pressured him to do it. Seeing as how the two were in a relationship, I would expect that a sexual component would not have been unreasonable to expect the guy to consent to on his own.
I have never raped a woman, but under certain circumstances it is possible that people would take it credibly if a woman accused me of it. I don't have any control over the actions of other men.
Right... because social pressure never caused anyone to do anything.
I think he's trying to illustrate how people use the "letter of the law" as a weapon to hurt other people, as the article is pointing out.
Well, the essay starts off with "the intent of the law" is that she be punished... but that since there was no other valid law to charge her with that the "letter of the law" got her.
Should we be upset that someone was punished for doing something obviously wrong? No. We should be concerned however whenever someone is punished with a different crime being justified that they were committing the other act.
Then the author gets off on some soapbox about people being accused of crimes, and how their information shouldn't be published... you know, we should just arrest them all Gestapo style, and when their wife/family asks what happened to them, "sorry, we're not allowed to discuss that in order to protect the accused from social embarrassment."
snowgirl, if you're ok with some guy who was previously in a loving relationship with a girl, with the consent of her family, having his life destroyed because the relationship turns sour, then you're not over whatever it was that happened to you.
The guy the GP referred to, does not deserve your misplaced anger and wish for retribution. The guy who assaulted you does.
Best of luck.
Right, because I'm a hysterical female, right? (BTW, look up the etymology of hysterical some time.)
No. The person was committing a crime, statutory rape is preempted by other rape charges if it were to so happen. It doesn't matter about the person's consent or not, and it's well established that a parent cannot consent their child to have sex.
The girl was unable to provide the necessary consent, and it was thus *shock* a crime. He shouldn't be shocked at being arrested for it, and no one should. However, he should feel lucky that he didn't get sent to jail for it.
I believe he was saying that the damage from the press coverage, not from the actual incident, is a problem for the alleged offender, damaging reputations and employment prospects if nothing else. If the incident is only alleged, the press coverage damage is the main object of the false allegation and should perhaps be discouraged.
So, should we not report on alleged murders? Who doesn't think that OJ didn't do it, even if a jury said so?
He has to live with the embarrassment of being called a murderer on every comedy show in the world anytime he comes back into the news.
Due process requires that alleged criminals have their crimes PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. That way there are no secret courts, and no secret punishments.
Imagine the pain and suffering to a victim of sexual assault, in the event of "secret courts"... he's found guilty, but no one knows about it. So what if it's published after the fact... it's two or three years old by that time usually.
Seriously, what kind of ASSHOLE CHAUVINISTIC PIG would say that the person alleged of sexual assault should it not be true would be WORSE off than the victim were it true?
Sorry to knock you off of your self-righteous soapbox, but read that article again before you fly off the handle. The author was pointing out that in the event of the allegation being false, the printing of names would be far more detrimental to the person falsely accused than to the "fake victim". Not, unfortunately for your crusade, that being accused of rape is worse than being raped.
No, you read it again:
For example, take the policy of not publishing the names of alleged rape victims. If the rationale is that the AP doesn't want to cause unfair embarrassment to the alleged victims in case their story is true, why wouldn't the AP also avoid publishing the name of the defendant, to avoid causing them vastly greater unfair embarrassment in case the victim's story is false?
I would not have said "less than a false allegation" but I think you understate the magnitude of what happens to someone who is accused of such a crime. Many people accused of sexual assaults lose their jobs (as they are unable to attend their workplace), and most will spend months suspended from their job while the police and prosecutors decide whether to proceed. In addition they will normally be publicly named (and have the allegation against them permanently recorded in newspapers etc), and there are many people out there who will then choose to believe the worst about them for the rest of their lives.
In many cases there is simply not enough evidence to either successfully prosecute one party for sexual assault or the other for making false reports. However only one person in that situation ever gets publicly named, only one person is likely to have lost their job and have their neighbors refuse to speak to them etc. Believe it or not, that sort of thing can cause a loss of trust as well...
Many people accused of sexual assaults don't even get anything at all. The police go over talk to them, decide that there isn't enough evidence, and they blow it off.
Fame and infamy don't last as long as you presume.
And honestly? DAMN RIGHT they should have that happen. Speaking as a victim. After all, nothing happened to my rapist. A little anxiety in his life wouldn't be too much to ask for, just so that he would accept what he did to me.
Seriously, what kind of ASSHOLE CHAUVINISTIC PIG would say that the person alleged of sexual assault should it not be true would be WORSE off than the victim were it true?
Read it again. He didn't say that at all. He said that the embarrassment of being publicly identified as a victim of sexual assault is less than the embarrassment of being publicly accused of being the assaulter. He was comparing the results of publication, not of the crime itself.
I stand by my position, and refuse to alter it. I don't care what he was talking about, to me it says that my pain is less than something else.
BTW, when arresting someone we're REQUIRED to identify their name and crime, it's called DUE PROCESS.
What if Drew had a son who agreed to seduce Megan, and who then told her to kill herself? The onlly difference would have been that if it was in person, there would be no evidence - but there would have been no crime, either.
If so, my friend's Annie's boyfriend is guilty of the same thing. Annie is on Zoloft for clinical depression, and one night when she was in a bad way and talking suicide, he told her everyone would be better off if she did. I wound up taking her to the hospital, where she was admitted to the nut ward.
Contemptable, but is it legal? Lots of contemptable things are legal. BTW that crazy Annie's back with her boyfriend. I hope she gives him the clap.
As far as I understand this, it wasn't a temporary thing, but an on going form of harassment. Plus, the boy in your case has a reasonable explanation for his interest in the girl. In the case of Megan though, the person was created out of thin air specifically for the purpose of harming the other person.
BTW, if Lori were to have a son and had told him to intentionally do these cruel things, she certainly would be responsible for the harassment, and the results thereof.
This isn't a case of a girl talking with a real boy, and having the world just be cruel like it normally is. This is a case of a girl expecting that the world is just naturally cruel, but in fact, it was just a specific person being cruel.
"Life sucks" is a valid sentiment only when the suffering cannot be responsibility of someone else. But if someone went out of their way, and documented that it is their responsibility? Well then, that person deserves to be convicted as much on being an idiot as being intentionally cruel and harmful to another person.
Suicidal people, by the very nature of being suicidal, aren't really in a position to make rational judgements regarding what may or may not happen should they top themselves. Suicidal people have, since time began, justified wilfully idiotic acts with spurious reasoning that only makes sense in their own heads.
That's the "Crazy people are all crazy" argument which fails to note that it isn't back or white, some people are more delusional than others. This ruling has just made it easier for the more rational people to end up in the same way as the less rational.
Fine... present to me a reasonable judicial due process to evaluate whether the person is really crazy, or more rationally crazy.
There isn't a way. So, treat them both the same... after all, the outcome is still the same...
If the rationale is that the AP doesn't want to cause unfair embarrassment to the alleged victims in case their story is true, why wouldn't the AP also avoid publishing the name of the defendant, to avoid causing them vastly greater unfair embarrassment in case the victim's story is false?
Excellent quote. You jest, but take into account this true story: my buddy who was 21 at the time was in a sexual relationship with a 17 year old whose father(who was a Sheriff) allowed it, even inviting my buddy to go on camping trips with them and allowing them their own tent.
After an abortion, the relationship turned sour, and my buddy was arrested shortly afterward for statutory rape. Only his name and the crime he was being charged with appeared in the paper. Bad news given the conservative, small-town lynch-mob environment. Though the charges were dropped after he posted bail, his rep was ruined all because of a petty revenge stunt with connections to law enforcement. The media are ruthless and they value sensation above all else.
So, what are you trying to say here? That a person commits statutory rape, (by your own admission you state this to be true) and is then arrested for it, and suffers consequences for it?
Here's a hint... parental consent to statutory rape does not make it any less illegal.
The charges were probably dropped because the sheriff could have been brought up on child neglect. However, again... by your own statement, THE CRIME HAPPENED.
Let this be a lesson to anyone... just because someone is looking the other way when seeing you do something doesn't mean that it wasn't illegal or criminal in the first place.
Blaming SSRIs is so stupid. What are they supposed to do? Let her live out her life in misery?
SSRIs can also cause liver damage, but you don't see people suggesting that this risk means they shouldn't be used. It's an ADVISEMENT that the doctors should consider the person's state before prescribing them.
Actually, the presumption on SSRIs here is that people will come out of a deep depression, and begin rationalizing suicide. Not that SSRIs actually cause the suicidal intents on its own.
I don't agree with most of this. Harassment is and should be a crime. People don't typically go "omg, if I just do XY, then I could get back at this person!" Even if that WERE the intentions of the person, doesn't it speak to the level of harassment that someone is willing to harm themselves in order to get justice for it?
The whole, sexual assault victim to suicide victim bs is totally out of line... the interest in the suicide situation is that they don't want to make suicide sound glamorous so people don't do it.
Seriously, what kind of ASSHOLE CHAUVINISTIC PIG would say that the person alleged of sexual assault should it not be true would be WORSE off than the victim were it true?
Seriously, have you been sexually assaulted? I have. You feel like shit, and it took me more than a week to even TRUST any man. I had to take a whole week off of work to just sit there and compose myself.
Yeah, those rape allegations certainly cause people to sit in their showers trying to get themselves clean...
No. Out of million years of evolution. A spider just fucks. I can't say I am sure because I am a reasonable person, but I would say its a 99.99% chance;-)
Maybe you are taking me too literally. I am being a little extremist just to make a point. I have a dog and can assure you that he is anything but a dumb eating and sleeping machine! He dreams, he sometimes acts like a spoiled kid. He even get bad humor;-)
I like taking people too literally.:P Anyways, the point is that yes, spiders likely have insufficient intelligence to realize that the sperm carries an active role in the production of offspring.
However, it's clear that the horsefish even though simple as they appear are aware of the males active role in production of offspring, as the male even takes care of the children.
All that is speculation however... but I'm sure bonobos understand what particular forms of sex can cause impregnation.
Interesting question, what _are_ the STD prevalence rates for bonobos?
We reproduce fine as we evolved to do (obviously, or we wouldn't be here:) But what happens to a human fetus when you effectively REMOVE the mother's natural estrogen by replacing it with PhytoFakeEstrogen?? That's Not A Normal Situation -- particularly since we didn't evolve to eat soy products!
We didn't evolve to eat anything in particular at all. We did however evolve to have a diet that can contain soy.
However, just like anything else, if you only eat one thing all the time, you're going to suffer from malnutrition before anything else, and if you eat primarily only X with just enough variety to stave off malnutrition, then you're likely to suffer ill effects no matter WHAT you're eating.:)
Oh, and yeah, I love my sig too... AltMed I think is making such a comeback in the USA because it's the only "medical" care that is affordable anymore... People hate doctors and western medicine because they're sick of the profit mongering... look at most countries where they have socialized healthcare, I'm willing to bet that they generally have weaker beliefs in AltMeds.
No, this is not to say that AltMed can't help. Accupunture has been shown to have positive effects... however it has also been shown that random accupunture is just as successful as intentional. Likewise, chiropractors can help with some back pains. And homeopathy is a nice safe (from a legal standpoint) way of prescribing a placebo. I mean, if your patient realizes what you really prescribed when he gave you a prescription for "Obecalp", then you're in legal danger of malpractice... however if you send them to a homeopath, knowing that it's just a placebo, then you're ok. *laugh* And, sometimes, people just need a placebo... hehe
However, as noted... neither chiropractors nor grammar nazis are qualified to actually evaluate the fields that they typically claim knowledge over.
Thanks for the corrections. Sometimes my memory leaves something to be desired. And certainly I knew very little of the underlying medical issues - House clearly did not cover all of that.:)
Please accept my token +1 Informative.
Meh... it's a TV show, of course they didn't cover the nitty-gritty. lol
But "Correlation is not causation" means that both are independent. If they are independent, they can happen together or not. Therefore, my sentence is correct, don't you agree?
No, I do not. Your statement is insufficiently accurate. Correlation is sometimes causation. In fact, causation causes correlation... that's why people presume that correlation indicates causation. The problem is that it's an implication. "Causation implies correlation." To say "A implies B" but that "B is not A" is not necessarily true... neither is it correct to say that "A implies B" but that "B is not an A".
"Correlation is not a causation" is an incorrect statement, and saying "correlation is not causation" leaves open the available misinterpretation that it is ALWAYS true.
The more accurate statement would be "correlation does not imply causation".
Matriarchal culture is one were women has the role of leadership. As far as I know, there is no connection with secret languages or anything like that
If you want to speak about that, there are a number of Matriarchal cultures out there. If you're wondering why it's not even, it likely has a lot to do with, what we see now is the result of evolution of cultures, and thus no representative of true chance. Nearly the entirety of western culture has been reformed to align in more ways than just being patriarchal. As well, oriental cultures are aligned similarly.
At the big bang there should have been equal matter and anti-matter produced, so why do we only see mostly matter?
The geeky jobs that I've been in before, mostly in computer programming, are pretty heavily dominated with "macho" men, at least on the American side.
Truckers and construction are going to tend to be lead by masculine dominance anyways, it's just the way our culture views it, as well... it's just because of how tough it is.
Then again, in my last job at Microsoft, there was another girl in my same team who was really "macho" in her own way. Basically, she didn't take sh*t, and just did whatever the hell she felt like. I, on the other hand, suffered from the "I can't say no" habits that us women tend to be raised with.:(
You're using the word "you". I presume you actually mean the impersonal pronoun "if you just grab a fork and stick it in the socket, then you're going to get electrocuted." Which is distinctly indicated in British English by using the pronoun "one".
In any case, no, I have no slept with any women... although unlike many slashdot readers, that does not mean that I do not have an active heterosexual sex life.
Actually, phytoestrogens work less efficiently than natural estrogens, which of course is different than CO binding much more strongly with hemoglobin than O2, to fatal events.
It's entirely possible that the estrogen is necessary for the animal to correctly um... fuse. In that case in male dogs, the lack of natural estrogen along with the competition from the less active phytoestrogens probably leads to the issue. I wouldn't know without more knowledge about fetal development in dogs.
I do know from the human side, that estrogen isn't an essential nutrient to the fetus, because the mother floods the fetus with tons of estrogen. As a result, its pretty well established by eons of successful human reproduction that it's not a significant factor in the dimorphism of males and females in humans.
Meh, as long as we always have a person to chat with.:)
Slashdot Mirror
The charges might also have been dropped because offering them their own tent and then prosecuting them for using it could constitute entrapment.
An interesting legal question there... however, entrapment has to be such that the officer pressures the individual into committing a crime that he would otherwise not have done.
If an undercover officer and a "friend" are outside of a supermarket, and the friend says "hey, give me your gun, so I can go rob the store", and the officer gives him an unloaded weapon, then the friend can be charged with burglary with a lethal weapon. However, if the friend just says "hey, I'm going to go rob this store," and the officer says "hey, here have my gun." Even then, it's not necessarily entrapment. If the friend just takes it without a second thought, then still not entrapment. However, if the friend goes, "uh, no, I don't think so. That would just worsen the crime." and the cop says, "hey, no, dude, you gotta use the gun or they won't listen to you." Then that's entrapment.
The only way it could be entrapment was if the guy was not willing to commit the crime unless the sheriff pressured him to do it. Seeing as how the two were in a relationship, I would expect that a sexual component would not have been unreasonable to expect the guy to consent to on his own.
I have never raped a woman, but under certain circumstances it is possible that people would take it credibly if a woman accused me of it. I don't have any control over the actions of other men.
Right... because social pressure never caused anyone to do anything.
So, what are you trying to say here? ...
I think he's trying to illustrate how people use the "letter of the law" as a weapon to hurt other people, as the article is pointing out.
Well, the essay starts off with "the intent of the law" is that she be punished... but that since there was no other valid law to charge her with that the "letter of the law" got her.
Should we be upset that someone was punished for doing something obviously wrong? No. We should be concerned however whenever someone is punished with a different crime being justified that they were committing the other act.
Then the author gets off on some soapbox about people being accused of crimes, and how their information shouldn't be published... you know, we should just arrest them all Gestapo style, and when their wife/family asks what happened to them, "sorry, we're not allowed to discuss that in order to protect the accused from social embarrassment."
snowgirl, if you're ok with some guy who was previously in a loving relationship with a girl, with the consent of her family, having his life destroyed because the relationship turns sour, then you're not over whatever it was that happened to you.
The guy the GP referred to, does not deserve your misplaced anger and wish for retribution. The guy who assaulted you does.
Best of luck.
Right, because I'm a hysterical female, right? (BTW, look up the etymology of hysterical some time.)
No. The person was committing a crime, statutory rape is preempted by other rape charges if it were to so happen. It doesn't matter about the person's consent or not, and it's well established that a parent cannot consent their child to have sex.
The girl was unable to provide the necessary consent, and it was thus *shock* a crime. He shouldn't be shocked at being arrested for it, and no one should. However, he should feel lucky that he didn't get sent to jail for it.
I believe he was saying that the damage from the press coverage, not from the actual incident, is a problem for the alleged offender, damaging reputations and employment prospects if nothing else. If the incident is only alleged, the press coverage damage is the main object of the false allegation and should perhaps be discouraged.
So, should we not report on alleged murders? Who doesn't think that OJ didn't do it, even if a jury said so?
He has to live with the embarrassment of being called a murderer on every comedy show in the world anytime he comes back into the news.
Due process requires that alleged criminals have their crimes PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. That way there are no secret courts, and no secret punishments.
Imagine the pain and suffering to a victim of sexual assault, in the event of "secret courts"... he's found guilty, but no one knows about it. So what if it's published after the fact... it's two or three years old by that time usually.
Seriously, what kind of ASSHOLE CHAUVINISTIC PIG would say that the person alleged of sexual assault should it not be true would be WORSE off than the victim were it true?
Sorry to knock you off of your self-righteous soapbox, but read that article again before you fly off the handle. The author was pointing out that in the event of the allegation being false, the printing of names would be far more detrimental to the person falsely accused than to the "fake victim". Not, unfortunately for your crusade, that being accused of rape is worse than being raped.
No, you read it again:
For example, take the policy of not publishing the names of alleged rape victims. If the rationale is that the AP doesn't want to cause unfair embarrassment to the alleged victims in case their story is true, why wouldn't the AP also avoid publishing the name of the defendant, to avoid causing them vastly greater unfair embarrassment in case the victim's story is false?
Emotionally? Not in the same way, but almost as bad.
Of course... they totally need to receive therapy and counseling for it.
Here's a hint to guys in general... STOP RAPING WOMEN, and no one will take it credibly when you're accused of it.
I would not have said "less than a false allegation" but I think you understate the magnitude of what happens to someone who is accused of such a crime. Many people accused of sexual assaults lose their jobs (as they are unable to attend their workplace), and most will spend months suspended from their job while the police and prosecutors decide whether to proceed. In addition they will normally be publicly named (and have the allegation against them permanently recorded in newspapers etc), and there are many people out there who will then choose to believe the worst about them for the rest of their lives.
In many cases there is simply not enough evidence to either successfully prosecute one party for sexual assault or the other for making false reports. However only one person in that situation ever gets publicly named, only one person is likely to have lost their job and have their neighbors refuse to speak to them etc. Believe it or not, that sort of thing can cause a loss of trust as well...
Many people accused of sexual assaults don't even get anything at all. The police go over talk to them, decide that there isn't enough evidence, and they blow it off.
Fame and infamy don't last as long as you presume.
And honestly? DAMN RIGHT they should have that happen. Speaking as a victim. After all, nothing happened to my rapist. A little anxiety in his life wouldn't be too much to ask for, just so that he would accept what he did to me.
Seriously, what kind of ASSHOLE CHAUVINISTIC PIG would say that the person alleged of sexual assault should it not be true would be WORSE off than the victim were it true?
Read it again. He didn't say that at all. He said that the embarrassment of being publicly identified as a victim of sexual assault is less than the embarrassment of being publicly accused of being the assaulter. He was comparing the results of publication, not of the crime itself.
I stand by my position, and refuse to alter it. I don't care what he was talking about, to me it says that my pain is less than something else.
BTW, when arresting someone we're REQUIRED to identify their name and crime, it's called DUE PROCESS.
What if Drew had a son who agreed to seduce Megan, and who then told her to kill herself? The onlly difference would have been that if it was in person, there would be no evidence - but there would have been no crime, either.
If so, my friend's Annie's boyfriend is guilty of the same thing. Annie is on Zoloft for clinical depression, and one night when she was in a bad way and talking suicide, he told her everyone would be better off if she did. I wound up taking her to the hospital, where she was admitted to the nut ward.
Contemptable, but is it legal? Lots of contemptable things are legal. BTW that crazy Annie's back with her boyfriend. I hope she gives him the clap.
As far as I understand this, it wasn't a temporary thing, but an on going form of harassment. Plus, the boy in your case has a reasonable explanation for his interest in the girl. In the case of Megan though, the person was created out of thin air specifically for the purpose of harming the other person.
BTW, if Lori were to have a son and had told him to intentionally do these cruel things, she certainly would be responsible for the harassment, and the results thereof.
This isn't a case of a girl talking with a real boy, and having the world just be cruel like it normally is. This is a case of a girl expecting that the world is just naturally cruel, but in fact, it was just a specific person being cruel.
"Life sucks" is a valid sentiment only when the suffering cannot be responsibility of someone else. But if someone went out of their way, and documented that it is their responsibility? Well then, that person deserves to be convicted as much on being an idiot as being intentionally cruel and harmful to another person.
I've known adult women who, being sexually assaulted as children, still refuse to trust men.
More specifically, it was a week before I trusted them even enough to be in the same room as a guy without someone there to watch them.
Also, childhood scars are bound to be much deeper... I suppose in that way, I'm fortunate. :(
Suicidal people, by the very nature of being suicidal, aren't really in a position to make rational judgements regarding what may or may not happen should they top themselves. Suicidal people have, since time began, justified wilfully idiotic acts with spurious reasoning that only makes sense in their own heads.
That's the "Crazy people are all crazy" argument which fails to note that it isn't back or white, some people are more delusional than others. This ruling has just made it easier for the more rational people to end up in the same way as the less rational.
Fine... present to me a reasonable judicial due process to evaluate whether the person is really crazy, or more rationally crazy.
There isn't a way. So, treat them both the same... after all, the outcome is still the same...
If the rationale is that the AP doesn't want to cause unfair embarrassment to the alleged victims in case their story is true, why wouldn't the AP also avoid publishing the name of the defendant, to avoid causing them vastly greater unfair embarrassment in case the victim's story is false?
Excellent quote. You jest, but take into account this true story: my buddy who was 21 at the time was in a sexual relationship with a 17 year old whose father(who was a Sheriff) allowed it, even inviting my buddy to go on camping trips with them and allowing them their own tent.
After an abortion, the relationship turned sour, and my buddy was arrested shortly afterward for statutory rape. Only his name and the crime he was being charged with appeared in the paper. Bad news given the conservative, small-town lynch-mob environment. Though the charges were dropped after he posted bail, his rep was ruined all because of a petty revenge stunt with connections to law enforcement. The media are ruthless and they value sensation above all else.
So, what are you trying to say here? That a person commits statutory rape, (by your own admission you state this to be true) and is then arrested for it, and suffers consequences for it?
Here's a hint... parental consent to statutory rape does not make it any less illegal.
The charges were probably dropped because the sheriff could have been brought up on child neglect. However, again... by your own statement, THE CRIME HAPPENED.
Let this be a lesson to anyone... just because someone is looking the other way when seeing you do something doesn't mean that it wasn't illegal or criminal in the first place.
Don't blame the parents or doctors for putting the girl on dangerous SSRI and anti-psychotic drugs.
From the third grade Megan had been under the care of a psychiatrist. She had been prescribed Celexa, Concerta and Geodon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Meier
The FDA and other bodies have found that SSRI medications cause increased suicide and agression in people under the age of 24.
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4272b1-01-FDA.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ssri#Adverse_effects
http://ssristories.com/
Blame someone else, its the [new] American way!
Blaming SSRIs is so stupid. What are they supposed to do? Let her live out her life in misery?
SSRIs can also cause liver damage, but you don't see people suggesting that this risk means they shouldn't be used. It's an ADVISEMENT that the doctors should consider the person's state before prescribing them.
Actually, the presumption on SSRIs here is that people will come out of a deep depression, and begin rationalizing suicide. Not that SSRIs actually cause the suicidal intents on its own.
I don't agree with most of this. Harassment is and should be a crime. People don't typically go "omg, if I just do XY, then I could get back at this person!" Even if that WERE the intentions of the person, doesn't it speak to the level of harassment that someone is willing to harm themselves in order to get justice for it?
The whole, sexual assault victim to suicide victim bs is totally out of line... the interest in the suicide situation is that they don't want to make suicide sound glamorous so people don't do it.
Seriously, what kind of ASSHOLE CHAUVINISTIC PIG would say that the person alleged of sexual assault should it not be true would be WORSE off than the victim were it true?
Seriously, have you been sexually assaulted? I have. You feel like shit, and it took me more than a week to even TRUST any man. I had to take a whole week off of work to just sit there and compose myself.
Yeah, those rape allegations certainly cause people to sit in their showers trying to get themselves clean...
No. Out of million years of evolution. A spider just fucks. I can't say I am sure because I am a reasonable person, but I would say its a 99.99% chance ;-)
Maybe you are taking me too literally. I am being a little extremist just to make a point. I have a dog and can assure you that he is anything but a dumb eating and sleeping machine! He dreams, he sometimes acts like a spoiled kid. He even get bad humor ;-)
I like taking people too literally. :P Anyways, the point is that yes, spiders likely have insufficient intelligence to realize that the sperm carries an active role in the production of offspring.
However, it's clear that the horsefish even though simple as they appear are aware of the males active role in production of offspring, as the male even takes care of the children.
All that is speculation however... but I'm sure bonobos understand what particular forms of sex can cause impregnation.
Interesting question, what _are_ the STD prevalence rates for bonobos?
Have you asked them? They fuck and that's all. No idea about reproduction...
Such an intriguing proposition... am I to believe humans spontaneously developed intelligence out of thin air?
We reproduce fine as we evolved to do (obviously, or we wouldn't be here :) But what happens to a human fetus when you effectively REMOVE the mother's natural estrogen by replacing it with PhytoFakeEstrogen?? That's Not A Normal Situation -- particularly since we didn't evolve to eat soy products!
We didn't evolve to eat anything in particular at all. We did however evolve to have a diet that can contain soy.
However, just like anything else, if you only eat one thing all the time, you're going to suffer from malnutrition before anything else, and if you eat primarily only X with just enough variety to stave off malnutrition, then you're likely to suffer ill effects no matter WHAT you're eating. :)
Oh, and yeah, I love my sig too... AltMed I think is making such a comeback in the USA because it's the only "medical" care that is affordable anymore... People hate doctors and western medicine because they're sick of the profit mongering... look at most countries where they have socialized healthcare, I'm willing to bet that they generally have weaker beliefs in AltMeds.
No, this is not to say that AltMed can't help. Accupunture has been shown to have positive effects... however it has also been shown that random accupunture is just as successful as intentional. Likewise, chiropractors can help with some back pains. And homeopathy is a nice safe (from a legal standpoint) way of prescribing a placebo. I mean, if your patient realizes what you really prescribed when he gave you a prescription for "Obecalp", then you're in legal danger of malpractice... however if you send them to a homeopath, knowing that it's just a placebo, then you're ok. *laugh* And, sometimes, people just need a placebo... hehe
However, as noted... neither chiropractors nor grammar nazis are qualified to actually evaluate the fields that they typically claim knowledge over.
Thanks for the corrections. Sometimes my memory leaves something to be desired. And certainly I knew very little of the underlying medical issues - House clearly did not cover all of that. :)
Please accept my token +1 Informative.
Meh... it's a TV show, of course they didn't cover the nitty-gritty. lol
But "Correlation is not causation" means that both are independent. If they are independent, they can happen together or not. Therefore, my sentence is correct, don't you agree?
No, I do not. Your statement is insufficiently accurate. Correlation is sometimes causation. In fact, causation causes correlation... that's why people presume that correlation indicates causation. The problem is that it's an implication. "Causation implies correlation." To say "A implies B" but that "B is not A" is not necessarily true... neither is it correct to say that "A implies B" but that "B is not an A".
"Correlation is not a causation" is an incorrect statement, and saying "correlation is not causation" leaves open the available misinterpretation that it is ALWAYS true.
The more accurate statement would be "correlation does not imply causation".
Matriarchal culture is one were women has the role of leadership. As far as I know, there is no connection with secret languages or anything like that
If you want to speak about that, there are a number of Matriarchal cultures out there. If you're wondering why it's not even, it likely has a lot to do with, what we see now is the result of evolution of cultures, and thus no representative of true chance. Nearly the entirety of western culture has been reformed to align in more ways than just being patriarchal. As well, oriental cultures are aligned similarly.
At the big bang there should have been equal matter and anti-matter produced, so why do we only see mostly matter?
Having a problem with crazy people doesn't make you a "chauvinist pig"
Yes, it does if you only have problems with the women being crazy.
That's not to say that you are, just to say your statement is not necessarily accurate.
The geeky jobs that I've been in before, mostly in computer programming, are pretty heavily dominated with "macho" men, at least on the American side.
Truckers and construction are going to tend to be lead by masculine dominance anyways, it's just the way our culture views it, as well... it's just because of how tough it is.
Then again, in my last job at Microsoft, there was another girl in my same team who was really "macho" in her own way. Basically, she didn't take sh*t, and just did whatever the hell she felt like. I, on the other hand, suffered from the "I can't say no" habits that us women tend to be raised with. :(
You're using the word "you". I presume you actually mean the impersonal pronoun "if you just grab a fork and stick it in the socket, then you're going to get electrocuted." Which is distinctly indicated in British English by using the pronoun "one".
In any case, no, I have no slept with any women... although unlike many slashdot readers, that does not mean that I do not have an active heterosexual sex life.
Actually, phytoestrogens work less efficiently than natural estrogens, which of course is different than CO binding much more strongly with hemoglobin than O2, to fatal events.
It's entirely possible that the estrogen is necessary for the animal to correctly um... fuse. In that case in male dogs, the lack of natural estrogen along with the competition from the less active phytoestrogens probably leads to the issue. I wouldn't know without more knowledge about fetal development in dogs.
I do know from the human side, that estrogen isn't an essential nutrient to the fetus, because the mother floods the fetus with tons of estrogen. As a result, its pretty well established by eons of successful human reproduction that it's not a significant factor in the dimorphism of males and females in humans.
Meh, as long as we always have a person to chat with. :)