JWeinCom said:
EricHiggin said:
JWeinCom said:
If a doctor was telling people they had cancer without providing any actual evidence, they'd be stripped of their license and sued into oblivion for malpractice. |
What if the doctor explains your medical condition in detail on the news? How can the public know you're not just wasting the system's time and money? Especially in a universal system. |
Evidence. Evidence is the answer to every question you're asking. Malpractice is a private cause of action. It's not a public matter, regardless of whether there is a universal system or not, because malpractice suits would be against the doctor directly. The public doesn't need to know shit. BUT if the public is really that interested, court records are available, so they can look up the records (which would possibly be redacted to protect my privacy). They can see the evidence I've presented for my claim. More importantly, the court can see the evidence for my claim. And if I am alleging fraud without evidence, then the court can force me to pay the legal fees for the doctor, and the doctor may have a cause of action for libel. Again, the answer to everything you say is evidence. The point of your analogy, which you've now drifted away from once the obvious flaw was pointed out, is that we should take a claim seriously and check it out because not doing so may be harmful. The obvious flaw in that is that we can't take seriously any random claim that's thrown out there. A random person on the subway one day was telling about 5 different people that the FBI was after them and would come to their home shortly. I doubt very much any of them took precautions, nor should they. We have to have some way to determine which claims are worth looking into and which are not. The best way to do that is with expertise and evidence. When someone who is qualified to make a determination, like a doctor, makes that determination with evidence, then it's a good idea to check that out. When someone has one or the other (expertise or evidence) it's still probably worth checking out, although we would start off more skeptically. When someone with no demonstrable expertise who whines like a fucking child every time he loses (when Ted Cruz beat him in Iowa when Clinton won the popular vote) and has already wasted millions of dollars on a fraud investigation that turned up nothing (in 2016 when he claimed he won except for the illegal immigrants voting) is making a claim without any evidence, we don't have to take that seriously. Now please stop with the hypotheticals, because it's going to be considered derailing. They are pointless. Of course you can find some scenario where it makes sense to take someone's claim seriously, but that doesn't mean that a claim in a completely different scenario should be taken seriously. |
I think you missed the explanation in a past post, below. After my point was further questioned in the manner it was, it was then answered. Most people don't tell their life story to everyone unless they're asked to, because most don't want to take the time. Even then, many give the short and sweet version regardless. Not all evidence is apparent at first glance or immediately available. That's why there is a process.
If my hypothetical analogy is so off topic and derailing, why did you take the time to write so much trying to prove it incorrect, then warn me if I continue to respond to it that you'll consider it a problem? Sounds a lot like counting ballots, legit or not, until you're ahead, then stopping the count before the opponent potentially takes the lead again. Abusing one's power doesn't sound like a very honest and fair system.
That medical analogy also was a follow up after being told in a mini rant, about how Trump was a failed businessman and TV star in a bunch of different ways, which had nothing to do with anything as to the political topic being discussed, yet nothing was said about derailment there.
EricHiggin said:
Ka-pi96 said:
EricHiggin said:
JWeinCom said:
If a doctor was telling people they had cancer without providing any actual evidence, they'd be stripped of their license and sued into oblivion for malpractice. |
What if the doctor explains your medical condition in detail on the news? How can the public know you're not just wasting the system's time and money? Especially in a universal system. |
What if they're not even a doctor? |
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:
What if the doctor explains your medical condition in detail on the news? |
I believe that would be a HIPAA violation. Doctors cannot legally share private details regarding my medical condition with the news. |
Some things are kept quiet/confidential for good reason. |
Why wasn't the point (below) I made earlier a problem? Ford had jack in terms of evidence when she made her claim. Yet that was allowed to go to a hearing to ascertain whether it was true or not, because if it were true, it would change how people viewed Kav and his nomination.
Do you not think this was the right decision, to allow the hearing and investigating, regardless of her 'evidence' prior to her testimony?
EricHiggin said:
JWeinCom said:
Just answer these simple yes or no questions. 1. Has Trump presented any evidence to support his allegations that voter fraud has cost him the election? 2. Should we take allegations seriously when there is no evidence to support them? |
Not simple. Depends on what you perceive as evidence and depends on how much you're privy to. I don't have to show any to know the response just like some don't need evidence from the msm to believe their reporting or not. You mean like the Ford-Kav hearings? Yes, they should be heard and taken seriously, not turned into a circus by the politicians and media. Let the lawyers and courts do their thing now, however long it takes, within reason. Report on it objectively if you're going to, especially due to it's extreme importance. |
PS1 - ! - We must build a console that can alert our enemies.
PS2 - @- We must build a console that offers online living room gaming.
PS3 - #- We must build a console that’s powerful, social, costs and does everything.
PS4 - $- We must build a console that’s affordable, charges for services, and pumps out exclusives.
PRO -%-We must build a console that's VR ready, checkerboard upscales, and sells but a fraction of the money printer.
PS5 - ^ -We must build a console that’s a generational cross product, with RT lighting, and price hiking.
PRO -&- We must build a console that Super Res upscales and continues the cost increases.
Currently Online 
