Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 LoB,My post was quite a bit more than the inital rhetorial question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywolf2375 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 What frightens me more than anything else are the officers who work so diligently to go after anyone who is filming their actions. If what they're doing can't stand up to public scrutiny then, perhaps, they shouldn't be doing it.Does the same apply to Dr's? When we were just in the hospital for K's c-section to say that the prohibition on cameras during the procedure was more than aggressive is an understatement..Or is it that there is something to what Sturn said above - I don't want to be videotaped by you because I have no control over how you edit the content to make it look like I'm the aggerssor/did something wrong/etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 MFA,It's your surgery I don't see why the hospital should be able to prevent you from filming it.[eta]Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 I think he meant it was the other way round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Min,See my edit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 LoB,My post was quite a bit more than the inital rhetorial question.And yet, that absurd rhetorical question is exactly where I lost interest in attempting to discuss the subject with you which sadly included whatever came subsequently.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 It's your surgery I don't see why the hospital should be able to prevent you from filming it.Perhaps the fact that you'd be filming someone else doing their job? The surgical patient is hardly the only person in the room. Or if they are, then something weird is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 LoB,You were the one who implied those of us who have been expressing concern over abuses of police power didn't think police were human. My rhetorical question is a perfectly reasonable response to your absurd implication.Min,The patient is the one who's life is at hazard. I'd say their rights trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Wait wait wait. Videotaping is now a right? When did that happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 You were the one who implied those of us who have been expressing concern over abuses of police power didn't think police were human.I'd love for you to point out where I did this. What I did was verbally roll my eyes at the idea that it was somehow notable that some of the police involved in this juvenile and hardly demonstrative of anything at all prank reacted in a way that was completely normal for any standard of human behavior.My rhetorical question is a perfectly reasonable response to your absurd implication.I made no absurd implication. You willfully or otherwise made an absurd inference. And then came your absurd rhetorical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Min,There's no right to film. You are correct. But police are acting on behalf of the public what they do in that service should be open to public scrutiny. If it's not it is a problem. Doctors are private actors so the situation is somewhat different. That said I can understand why a patient might want to film their surgery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 LoB,Here you go:Almost like they were human.How is that not an implication that we thought they weren't human? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Wheee! Taking strictly literal interpretations of text is fun. Who needs context anyway? It's not like that's a thing that humans use when communicating.Surprise was expressed that the police behaved in a normal human way. This was pointed out as ridiculous, because duh. Now, we can either take the "duh" to mean "of course police do not check their human behaviour in at the door when they take the job", or we can take it to mean "OMG you said we think police are subhuman/alien/bestial!!!". Picking the latter is just trolling for a fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 How is that not an implication that we thought they weren't human?1. I was addressing one particular post by one particular poster. There was no "we." There was Atreides. And while I was tsk tsking Tormund in my head for even linking the stupid thing, you Ser or anyone else in this thread were the furthest thing from my mind. 2. I've already explained this, even though I shouldn't have had to in the first place.3. I don't feel like banging my head against the Mathew Lesko of brick walls anymore this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Min,Yes, I'm trolling for a fight.*deep sigh*LoB,Very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturn Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Or is it that there is something to what Sturn said above - I don't want to be videotaped by you because I have no control over how you edit the content to make it look like I'm the aggerssor/did something wrong/etc.This....well and I don't want to find myself on Youtube to be ridiculed for years by my co-workers for being in uniform picking my nose, itching my crotch, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Sturn,Nobody wants that. But when I'm in court, or here for that matter, my stupid naterings are open to public view. If someone tapes them or republishes them who am I to object? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greywolf2375 Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Sturn,Nobody wants that. But when I'm in court, or here for that matter, my stupid naterings are open to public view. If someone tapes them or republishes them who am I to object?So it wouldn't make any difference to you - at all - that someone videos' you during a trial in which race is a topic, takes that tape and culls it so that what you are saying makes you appear to be a racist? And then puts it on Youtube? My job has nothing to do with anything like that and I still wouldn't want someone videoing me. Does that mean I should do something else...no, beause it wouldn't matter what I am doing, I don't want to be video taped.Should the police be held to an incredibly high standard? yes. Should they - or anyone else - have to do their job looking over their shoulder for the next person to Try To Catch Them. no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 5, 2012 Share Posted March 5, 2012 Yes, I'd have a problem with selective editing butthat does not mean my public actions have some expectation of privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted March 5, 2012 Author Share Posted March 5, 2012 Selective editing could and does fall under existing statutes against slander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.