Whistleblowing Nurse: ICE may be doing an ethnic cleansing via sterilization

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
1,643
1,540
118
Country
USA
And did 1917 Americans know that?
If so, then why did they fumigate their homes, mattresses, and clothing with these dangerous chemicals?

You two forget, you're supposed to be proving malicious intent, not merely accidental exposure to toxic chemicals due to scientific ignorance. Like I said, you can't commit genocide on accident.
Maybe. Doubt they cared though.
 

Gethsemani

Hardcore Feminazi
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
430
322
68
Country
Sweden
Like I said, you can't commit genocide on accident.
I am fairly certain that when the Spaniards introduced smallpox to the Americas this is exactly what they did. You absolutely can, but you need to be very reckless or ignorant to do so.
 

Houseman

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,636
414
88
I am fairly certain that when the Spaniards introduced smallpox to the Americas this is exactly what they did. You absolutely can, but you need to be very reckless or ignorant to do so.
Not by the definition I'm using. From wikipedia: "Genocide is the intentional action to destroy a people—usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group—in whole or in part."

Maybe this is just a big misunderstanding. Maybe everyone else actually is using a watered-down definition of genocide that's something like "intentionally or unintentionally causes harm to a group".

That would explain a lot.
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,133
961
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
The evidence is that these chemicals are highly dangerous and can easily kill or harm someone over repeated exposure or cause significant birth defects. These people were repeatedly exposed to them, that is documented. There absolutely is evidence, just evidence you don’t care about.
So then he proceeds to show propaganda by the chemical companies making this crap like that some how means they didn't know it wasn't safe.

Just like this is proof they didn't know tobacco wasn't safe right?

Also reminds me of how oil companies had their pocket politicians trying to convince people that they didn't harm the environment and that Fracking didn't cause earthquakes.. Hold up some propaganda and scream "LOOK HERE IS PROOF!" LMAO.
 

Houseman

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,636
414
88
"This chemical is safe" =\= "this chemical can be used safely"

Don't be so disingenuous. Even the guy in the "propoganda" was wearing a mask.

You two have no evidence and you're not even engaging with my arguments now, which is indicative of bad faith, so I'm going to sleep now and won't be coming back to this argument.

You have no evidence of genocide and your arguments are those that conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers use.

You may have the last word.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,133
961
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
"This chemical is safe" =\= "this chemical can be used safely"

Don't be so disingenuous. Even the guy in the "propoganda" was wearing a mask.

You two have no evidence and you're not even engaging with my arguments now, which is indicative of bad faith, so I'm going to sleep now and won't be coming back to this argument.

You have no evidence of genocide and your arguments are those that conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers use.

You may have the last word.
[email protected] you telling ANYONE they are disingenuous. You are trying to defend them using poisonous chemicals they use in gas chambers and execution's and on people and their clothing "safely".
Yea, the evidence that they did this to tens of thousands of people, as the US documented that they did to this to all the immigrants coming in through the southern border and we know what these chemicals do to people, and that they were aware these chemicals were harmful for a very long time before they even used them here and you are attempting to pretend that there was anything safe about any of it is a joke. We have AMPLE evidence that these chemicals are harmful, that is why they are banned in so many nations. Who in their right mind would actually try to defend the use of gasoline, kerosene, sodium cyanide, cyanogens, sulfuric acid, and zyklon b on people and their possessions in good faith? Oh yea.. there is NOTHING in Good faith about your arguments. They knew they were harmful and simply didn't care.
 
Last edited:

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
1,643
1,540
118
Country
USA
Not by the definition I'm using. From wikipedia: "Genocide is the intentional action to destroy a people—usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group—in whole or in part."

Maybe this is just a big misunderstanding. Maybe everyone else actually is using a watered-down definition of genocide that's something like "intentionally or unintentionally causes harm to a group".

That would explain a lot.
Intent is a highly disputable thing. When America leveled Korea, introduced deadly defoliants to Vietnam, or fired enough depleted Uranium shells in Iraq it seeped into the drinking water, I imagine the “intent” was disputed. The intent behind this all is fairly unknowable. I doubt every worker intended to poison people, intended to create a situation where vulnerable women would be systemically sexually harassed, intended to create a situation where dozens could die to an errant spark. I doubt most anyone involved “intended” any of this. Some may have had genuine concerns about lice or dissease built up over years of paranoia about the disgusting “other” that is the immigrant. Many just wanted to make migration uncomfortable enough to slow down the rate it occurred at. Some did want to hurt people. The consequences were the same regardless of their varied intents.

This is why your idealistic view is so pointless, it relies on evidence of the unknowable to reach conclusions. You construct for yourself an unknowable world so you can believe and doubt whatever you want. Ultimately, it’s little better than outright Nihilism, perhaps worse given the more dramatic framing you provide to it. It’s sophistry. It’s empty.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
717
189
48
Country
USA
A personal finance columnist is where you get your medical information?
That would be funny if you hadn't taken it seriously as blanket medical advice. It is considered an ethics violation and yes, can be considered illegal as well depending on the circumstance. Informed consent is not " optional" as you suggest. Not obtaining informed consent is illegal.
No, that is incorrect. And this isn't medical information but about law.
Law and case history can be odd and even incredible. But you have examples of all sorts of extremes on either side. I've read of a case where a doctor DID get what he thought was informed consent and later, the patient won claiming while s/he gave such informed consent, the doctor should have done even more than done to provide even more information, properly stressing the importance of certain information first. But in other cases, the doctor, for reasons, did not confer at all with a patient (example: in emergencies) but the jury found as a matter of fact, a reasonable person would consent to the actions taken in the emergency. If you doubt this, I'll try to find an example for you.

Intent is a highly disputable thing. When America leveled Korea, introduced deadly defoliants to Vietnam, or fired enough depleted Uranium shells in Iraq it seeped into the drinking water, I imagine the “intent” was disputed. The intent behind this all is fairly unknowable. I doubt every worker intended to poison people, intended to create a situation where vulnerable women would be systemically sexually harassed, intended to create a situation where dozens could die to an errant spark. I doubt most anyone involved “intended” any of this. Some may have had genuine concerns about lice or dissease built up over years of paranoia about the disgusting “other” that is the immigrant. Many just wanted to make migration uncomfortable enough to slow down the rate it occurred at. Some did want to hurt people. The consequences were the same regardless of their varied intents.

This is why your idealistic view is so pointless, it relies on evidence of the unknowable to reach conclusions. You construct for yourself an unknowable world so you can believe and doubt whatever you want. Ultimately, it’s little better than outright Nihilism, perhaps worse given the more dramatic framing you provide to it. It’s sophistry. It’s empty.
Your reply is silly. Stop it.
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,133
961
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
No, that is incorrect. And this isn't medical information but about law.
Law and case history can be odd and even incredible. But you have examples of all sorts of extremes on either side. I've read of a case where a doctor DID get what he thought was informed consent and later, the patient won claiming while s/he gave such informed consent, the doctor should have done even more than done to provide even more information, properly stressing the importance of certain information first. But in other cases, the doctor, for reasons, did not confer at all with a patient (example: in emergencies) but the jury found as a matter of fact, a reasonable person would consent to the actions taken in the emergency. If you doubt this, I'll try to find an example for you.
Juries and judges being fickle does not change the definition of informed consent.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
717
189
48
Country
USA
Juries and judges being fickle does not change the definition of informed consent.
Your statement doesn't change case history which, if any of the topic we are reviewing makes it to a court room, will be brought up.
No. My loathing of idealism is unending. I will never stop Gorf. You cannot make me.
No, I cannot. But it's your reputation that is harmed by being silly. Oh well. I tried.
 

Gethsemani

Hardcore Feminazi
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
430
322
68
Country
Sweden
Juries and judges being fickle does not change the definition of informed consent.
It sort of does though? Informed consent is very much a legal term, albeit one used almost exclusively within healthcare. Gorfias point that informed consent is not set in stone and not always mandatory is completely legit. In compulsory psychiatric care it can often be judged that informed consent can not be given and the treating psychiatrist has to decide what treatment has the best benefit versus how much damage it may cause (including psychological damage due to violations of personal autonomy and integrity). Similarly, as Gorfias pointed out, there are situations in emergency care when informed consent can not be properly obtained, either because the patient is unconscious or otherwise unable to provide it (being drugged out of their mind for example) or because the medical need is so great that you do not have time to obtain informed consent if you want to save the patients life. Then we get into the issues of whether informed consent can be given if the patient is under the influence, if they are in great pain or otherwise in such a medical situation that they want to get out of the suffering. What if we suspect they don't really understand the information we are giving?

On top of that, as Gorfias points out, there is the question of how much information informed consent actually entails. Does it mean explaining the intervention and common side effects and risks? A comprehensive discussion of potential outcomes and even the most low probability risks? If you say "I want you to take beta blockers, they lower your blood pressure" and the patients says "Great! Let's do it!" is that enough for informed consent? What if they suffer a massive blood pressure drop and dislocate their shoulder because you didn't have time to inform them about the side effects, are you liable because you didn't inform enough?

That we should always strive to gather informed consent is obvious and paramount and in most cases we can safely say that the patient has given informed consent before treatment or examination starts. But Gorfias point about the vagaries of informed consent is also correct. We should respect that as simple as it might seem to make sure the patient always agrees before we start our interventions, that will not always be the case because of the realities of healthcare. And that's why juries and judges eventually gets a say in how informed consent works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,133
961
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
It sort of does though? Informed consent is very much a legal term, albeit one used almost exclusively within healthcare. Gorfias point that informed consent is not set in stone and not always mandatory is completely legit. In compulsory psychiatric care it can often be judged that informed consent can not be given and the treating psychiatrist has to decide what treatment has the best benefit versus how much damage it may cause (including psychological damage due to violations of personal autonomy and integrity). Similarly, as Gorfias pointed out, there are situations in emergency care when informed consent can not be properly obtained, either because the patient is unconscious or otherwise unable to provide it (being drugged out of their mind for example) or because the medical need is so great that you do not have time to obtain informed consent if you want to save the patients life. Then we get into the issues of whether informed consent can be given if the patient is under the influence, if they are in great pain or otherwise in such a medical situation that they want to get out of the suffering. What if we suspect they don't really understand the information we are giving?

On top of that, as Gorfias points out, there is the question of how much information informed consent actually entails. Does it mean explaining the intervention and common side effects and risks? A comprehensive discussion of potential outcomes and even the most low probability risks? If you say "I want you to take beta blockers, they lower your blood pressure" and the patients says "Great! Let's do it!" is that enough for informed consent? What if they suffer a massive blood pressure drop and dislocate their shoulder because you didn't have time to inform them about the side effects, are you liable because you didn't inform enough?

That we should always strive to gather informed consent is obvious and paramount and in most cases we can safely say that the patient has given informed consent before treatment or examination starts. But Gorfias point about the vagaries of informed consent is also correct. We should respect that as simple as it might seem to make sure the patient always agrees before we start our interventions, that will not always be the case because of the realities of healthcare. And that's why juries and judges eventually gets a say in how informed consent works.
He was replying to THIS specifically that I already posted:

Where that was already addressed. We have guidelines we follow specifically for that situation already. I am assuming Sweden has the same?
 

Gethsemani

Hardcore Feminazi
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
430
322
68
Country
Sweden
He was replying to THIS specifically that I already posted:

Where that was already addressed. We have guidelines we follow specifically for that situation already. I am assuming Sweden has the same?
I think it holds true for most healthcare systems around the world, I've never heard of one that doesn't. However, we should not make informed consent seem easier then it is, because even with guidelines there are gray areas. Gorfias point that the ultimate arbiter of informed consent is a court of law is in fact correct and very valid to the understanding that our guidelines have limits and don't always cover or consider the peculiar or extraordinary circumstances that tend to crop up when people are in urgent need of medical care. It might not matter in the case of these women, where it is hard to see exactly what extraordinary circumstance would have prevented the gathering of informed consent. But in a broader perspective it is not only valid but critical to understand that informed consent is a legal obligation and thus subject to court rulings on how and when it applies.