Originally posted by Caleveira

Originally posted by rothbard

No, Jim Crow laws are illegitimate for the same reason a law forbidding restaurants to require jacket, or a law forbidding discrimination, are illegitimate.  They both usurp the rights of the owner.  They both seek to transfer control of something that is already owned by someone, to someone else.  This is actual oppression.

 Your rationale would give a bussiness owner the prerogative of refusing service to anyone they might dislike, or to otherwise limit the use of their facilities.

Yes, that is correct.

This is what Jim Crow laws were meant to accomplish.

No.  If everyone already wanted to exclude people there would be no reason to have a law requiring it.  The point of Jim Crow laws was to prevent, by force, any change in the social order that the people in power preferred.  They made discrimination mandatory so as to prevent non-discriminating businesses from competing with the discriminators.

Once you make a public offer of your services (such as an "open" sign) you have an obligation not to refuse service without legitimate reasons.

But the point is any reason is legitimate since it is my service that is being offered.

Your view that ownership rights are more important than basic human civility is shared by no country or society in the world, except perhaps by islamic regimes which enforce Dhimmi status upon religious minorities and foreigners.

Yes ownership rights are more important than human civility.  Without ownership rights their can be no real human civility.  A religious regime enforcing a status upon minorites is in fact denying the ownership rights of its people, so your example is really the opposite of what you intended.  Dhimmi status is just like Jim Crow.

Everyone has the right to demand any services they can pay for as long as it is within law and reason.

No they don't.  What if it is not for sale?  Do you have the right to demand that I bend over, so long as you can pay?  No, because this isn't for sale, no matter how much you want to pay.  An exchange of service for payment requires to willing participants, or else it is not really an exchange.

As a lawyer i cant legally refuse service to someone on the grounds that theyre libertarians for instance...

I hate that for you, but you should be able to refuse service to whoever you damn well please.

Originally posted by Caleveira

We are discussing public life, which MMOs are a part of. Enacting antidiscrimination laws is forcing no one. Social segregation is still quite common.
 

Huh?  A law is force by definition.  What point would there be to an antidiscrimination law if it is not to force people to not-discriminate?

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by tro44_1

Whats the point of this?

 

well, this thread hasnt been locked yet, so we must be doing something right =D

I just want to know who/what group of  people have  the right to tell this company how to operate? Because if that said group changes its mind and agrees that this is a good policy we could be in for some problems

Originally posted by seabeast

I just want to know who/what group of  people have  the right to tell this company how to operate? Because if that said group changes its mind and agrees that this is a good policy we could be in for some problems

Socialists.

Originally posted by seabeast

I just want to know who/what group of  people have  the right to tell this company how to operate?

No one does.

Because if that said group changes its mind and agrees that this is a good policy we could be in for some problems

Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Caleveira

Originally posted by rothbard

No, Jim Crow laws are illegitimate for the same reason a law forbidding restaurants to require jacket, or a law forbidding discrimination, are illegitimate.  They both usurp the rights of the owner.  They both seek to transfer control of something that is already owned by someone, to someone else.  This is actual oppression.

 Your rationale would give a bussiness owner the prerogative of refusing service to anyone they might dislike, or to otherwise limit the use of their facilities.

Yes, that is correct.

This is what Jim Crow laws were meant to accomplish.

No.  If everyone already wanted to exclude people there would be no reason to have a law requiring it.  The point of Jim Crow laws was to prevent, by force, any change in the social order that the people in power preferred.  They made discrimination mandatory so as to prevent non-discriminating businesses from competing with the discriminators.

Once you make a public offer of your services (such as an "open" sign) you have an obligation not to refuse service without legitimate reasons.

But the point is any reason is legitimate since it is my service that is being offered.

Your view that ownership rights are more important than basic human civility is shared by no country or society in the world, except perhaps by islamic regimes which enforce Dhimmi status upon religious minorities and foreigners.

Yes ownership rights are more important than human civility.  Without ownership rights their can be no real human civility.  A religious regime enforcing a status upon minorites is in fact denying the ownership rights of its people, so your example is really the opposite of what you intended.  Dhimmi status is just like Jim Crow.

Everyone has the right to demand any services they can pay for as long as it is within law and reason.

No they don't.  What if it is not for sale?  Do you have the right to demand that I bend over, so long as you can pay?  No, because this isn't for sale, no matter how much you want to pay.  An exchange of service for payment requires to willing participants, or else it is not really an exchange.

As a lawyer i cant legally refuse service to someone on the grounds that theyre libertarians for instance...

I hate that for you, but you should be able to refuse service to whoever you damn well please.

 

A black man arrives at the hospital with a bullet wound in his abdomen. he will die if not operated. all the doctors are racists. by your reasoning, they have the right not to treat this man, effectivelly killing him. this goes beyond some merchant refusing to sell apples to black people.

Originally posted by Caleveira

Originally posted by someforumguy

Originally posted by Caleveira

Originally posted by someforumguy

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by rothbard

 

(...) a law forbidding discrimination, are illegitimate. (...)

 

thats cute.

yes, and true.  Forced discrimination is just as evil as forced nondiscrimination.  Discrimination is a fact of acting individuals.  Every single action you perform, no matter how small, implies a degree of discrimination.  There is always something you could of done instead.  You are always discriminating. 

and yet, black people now have the right to go to the same schools as white people, and are not stopped at 'no blacks' signs in restaurants. this is not evil. the opposite is.

A law forbidding discrimination would mean you couldnt make men go to mens toilets and women go to womens toilets. It also wouldnt be legal to only have services for ppl over 60yrs of age.These are just a few examples of accepted forms of discriminating. Laws are more precise then just 'its illegal to discriminate' for that reason.

You need to read more carefully.

 

 

Different societies have freed themselves of prejudice at different rates, unisex restrooms are quite common in Europe.

 

Well, let me put it simple then. Chose apples over oranges and you discriminate.

 

Yea, cuz we all know reductio ad absurdum makes for a sound argument.

The point was that a law forbidding discrimination is as evil as forced nondiscrimination. I just gave examples to someone else about that. You then quoting me and start a discussion about one of my examples. Who cares that some countries accept unisex restrooms. Tolerance doesnt exclude discrimination.

My silly apple and oranges comment was just to show that I really werent really interested in changing the topic.

Originally posted by NeverLand7

''Aurora Technology over in China has apparently decided to cut out the middleman in the equation -- they're banning any male players who play female characters, requiring players to confirm their gender via webcam in order to enforce the ruling.''

''Aurora is a subsidiary of Shanda, a company responsible for publishing Aion and Dungeons and Dragons Online in the region, which are names slightly more familiar to players on this side of the pond.''

Source : www.massively.com/2009/10/27/chinese-company-bans-gender-bending/

Pretty extreme if you ask me. For those of you males who like playing as female chars, you would be sorely out of luck in China.

It's good to know that although that country could become insanely powerful globally with it's population and growing money, that it will never happen because as a country they are ridiculous.

And what stops someone from having their friend get on webcam real quick so they get verified anyways?

Sounds like they are tired of finding out the hot chick they just cybered with was...well...wasn't.

I would like to point out that the chinese governmenthas made Gold Selling a legal act by adding a tax on this service. In other words, there is no need to be suprised by such moves.

---

As for wether I play a female or male characters, it only depends on how the characters looks. If the male is badly designed I'm more likely to play as a female character. Some games also have gender restrictions which I don't mind either. I don't role-play and I don't hide my real gender either.

Seriously, if I wanted to play as Samus Aran, I'd play as Samus Aran and not a male version because I'm a male. I really don't understand what is going on in that company's mind but all I know is that it's just stupid.

 good idea, even tho´ alot of chinese males can easily look like a female with some make up, no offence!

i also dislike  males playing  female chars... once a guy gave me a reason why he played  female chars, he said;

i don't want to stare at a mans but when i progress my char. i mean, lol? you need to play a female char to ensure yourself that your not gay? no offence!  but, lol :P

i played so many MMO's, never had a female char (except on WoW a gnome female warrior, just to piss off horde :P ) , but i'm also an Rper and fan of lore, and then i always play a male char, playing a female char doesnt feel right for me, i play my char the way i should act in the game.

i love the idea, go china!

Originally posted by vladakov

 

i also dislike  males playing  female chars... once a guy gave me a reason why he played  female chars, he said;

i don't want to stare at a mans but when i progress my char. i mean, lol? you need to play a female char to ensure yourself that your not gay? no offence!  but, lol :P

Or he just likes to look at female butts :)  There is no problem when men play female characters, untill someone starts hitting on them :p Dont blame those female char playing men for that :)

Originally posted by vladakov

 good idea, even tho´ alot of chinese males can easily look like a female with some make up, no offence!

 

i also dislike  males playing  female chars... once a guy gave me a reason why he played  female chars, he said;

i don't want to stare at a mans but when i progress my char. i mean, lol? you need to play a female char to ensure yourself that your not gay? no offence!  but, lol :P

i played so many MMO's, never had a female char (except on WoW a gnome female warrior, just to piss off horde :P ) , but i'm also an Rper and fan of lore, and then i always play a male char, playing a female char doesnt feel right for me, i play my char the way i should act in the game.

i love the idea, go china!

Truthfully anyone who cares what gender character a person plays is pathetic.

There are only two reason to care:

1st) You hope that all the female characters you run are played by females so you can flirt and hope to cyber.  

2nd) You hope that all the female characters are played by females so you can try and date them.

Neither of those goals make you a non-pathetic human being.

Now if you are trying to argue it's wrong on a moral level (which would be a lie because the real reason are above but let's pretend). Then would you also not play a game that has a set main character because you weren't of that gender? No playing Half-life single player if you're a female? No playing duke nukem or doom because you're female? It is a completly fictitious world and real life gender doesn't matter.

Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Caleveira

Originally posted by rothbard

No, Jim Crow laws are illegitimate for the same reason a law forbidding restaurants to require jacket, or a law forbidding discrimination, are illegitimate.  They both usurp the rights of the owner.  They both seek to transfer control of something that is already owned by someone, to someone else.  This is actual oppression.

 Your rationale would give a bussiness owner the prerogative of refusing service to anyone they might dislike, or to otherwise limit the use of their facilities.

Yes, that is correct.

Yet you fail to see how that is in any way wrong? Guess Rosa Parks was just infringing a companys rights when she refused to go to the back of the bus.

This is what Jim Crow laws were meant to accomplish.

No.  If everyone already wanted to exclude people there would be no reason to have a law requiring it.  The point of Jim Crow laws was to prevent, by force, any change in the social order that the people in power preferred.  They made discrimination mandatory so as to prevent non-discriminating businesses from competing with the discriminators.

Jim Crow was brought about by the Status Quo to preserve itself. Yes, i will agree that they were meant to discourage competition, but the bottom line is they protected entitlement by the bussiness base to their practices. If you want to go into economics this was protectivism at its worse-

Once you make a public offer of your services (such as an "open" sign) you have an obligation not to refuse service without legitimate reasons.

But the point is any reason is legitimate since it is my service that is being offered.

No, its not. Running out of stock or a delivery area not being cost effective for you to pursue are legitimate reasons. Whatever goes on inside your head its not. 

Your view that ownership rights are more important than basic human civility is shared by no country or society in the world, except perhaps by islamic regimes which enforce Dhimmi status upon religious minorities and foreigners.

Yes ownership rights are more important than human civility.  Without ownership rights their can be no real human civility.  A religious regime enforcing a status upon minorites is in fact denying the ownership rights of its people, so your example is really the opposite of what you intended.  Dhimmi status is just like Jim Crow.

Civilty is not based on property and it predates it in the historical sense. Respect for human dignity should be the foundation of social interaction. No property is involved in this forums and yet we would be expected to be civil. We dont own our accounts but we are entitled to our identities as those are intrinsic.

Everyone has the right to demand any services they can pay for as long as it is within law and reason.

No they don't.  What if it is not for sale?  Do you have the right to demand that I bend over, so long as you can pay?  No, because this isn't for sale, no matter how much you want to pay.  An exchange of service for payment requires to willing participants, or else it is not really an exchange.

If its not for sale then its not being offered. I had already implied an offer being made. Youre actually in breach of contract if you refuse to provide me with a service that you have advertised, which is the reason ads contain small print. This is aside from the discrimination issue.

As a lawyer i cant legally refuse service to someone on the grounds that theyre libertarians for instance...

I hate that for you, but you should be able to refuse service to whoever you damn well please.

Lawyers would be in a difficult position if they had to like their clients. There are plenty of legitimate reasons i can refuse to counsel anyone. My disaproval of them is not one.

 Finally, you seem to have a very outdated view of the law. If you see law as force then youre missing the point that humans can only be free when living in free societies. Freedom is not such if youre alone, and in order to be free amongst others there must be laws. Good laws free people, bad laws opress them. The law uses force only to prevent violence or to ammend it. Yes, fraud is violence. There is a difference in between individuals forcing their will on others and the courts administering justice.

Originally posted by someforumguy

Originally posted by Caleveira

Originally posted by someforumguy

Originally posted by Caleveira

Originally posted by someforumguy

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Toquio3

Originally posted by rothbard

 

(...) a law forbidding discrimination, are illegitimate. (...)

 

thats cute.

yes, and true.  Forced discrimination is just as evil as forced nondiscrimination.  Discrimination is a fact of acting individuals.  Every single action you perform, no matter how small, implies a degree of discrimination.  There is always something you could of done instead.  You are always discriminating. 

and yet, black people now have the right to go to the same schools as white people, and are not stopped at 'no blacks' signs in restaurants. this is not evil. the opposite is.

A law forbidding discrimination would mean you couldnt make men go to mens toilets and women go to womens toilets. It also wouldnt be legal to only have services for ppl over 60yrs of age.These are just a few examples of accepted forms of discriminating. Laws are more precise then just 'its illegal to discriminate' for that reason.

You need to read more carefully.

 

 

Different societies have freed themselves of prejudice at different rates, unisex restrooms are quite common in Europe.

 

Well, let me put it simple then. Chose apples over oranges and you discriminate.

 

Yea, cuz we all know reductio ad absurdum makes for a sound argument.

 

The point was that a law forbidding discrimination is as evil as forced nondiscrimination. I just gave examples to someone else about that. You then quoting me and start a discussion about one of my examples. Who cares that some countries accept unisex restrooms. Tolerance doesnt exclude discrimination.

My silly apple and oranges comment was just to show that I really werent really interested in changing the topic.

There is a difference between positive discrimination and reverse discrimination but the subtlety is lost in some... Discrimination, plain and simple is wrong. Allowing some services to help others overcome inequality is not the same thing, hence my comment.

Tolerance is a necessary evil, a truly evolved society would be based on respect. The law cant make you respect others but it can force you to tolerate them... See the difference? Youd be going against your own principles if you discriminated against someone you respected. If you dont respect a race or a people is because you dont know enough about them, or yourself, ignorance is what makes people prejudiced...

Its kinda interesting how every attemp at tracing this story to its source or looking for info on the game seem to end at this 2 year old news story

http://www.jlmpacificepoch.com/newsstories?id=106627_0_5_0_M

Especialy after reading

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2007/09/chinese-mmorpg-banning-cross-gender-roleplayers.ars

Unless there is some more reliable sourceone might assume some reporter accidentaly resurrected a hoax that then went viral  :)

Originally posted by leraza

Its kinda interesting how every attemp at tracing this story to its source or looking for info on the game seem to end at this 2 year old news story

http://www.jlmpacificepoch.com/newsstories?id=106627_0_5_0_M

Especialy after reading

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2007/09/chinese-mmorpg-banning-cross-gender-roleplayers.ars

Unless there is some more reliable sourceone might assume some reporter accidentaly resurrected a hoax that then went viral  :)

Good point, this could be like the China banning RMT thing.

Originally posted by Toquio3

A black man [person] arrives at the hospital with a bullet wound in his abdomen. he will die if not operated. all the doctors are racists [don't want to treat him]. by your reasoning, they have the right not to treat this man, effectivelly killing him. [..]

(Note, edited to address the general case, since the answer is the same)

Yes, the doctor's have the right not to treat the man.  To say otherwise is to say that the man has the right to demand treatment.  If something is to be a right than it means it is something that can be legitimately enforced.  This would mean the man would be within his rights, that if denied treatment, to hold a gun to the doctor's head and demand treatment.  In effect this act is an assertion by the man that he owns the doctor. 

Its China so how is it our concern? We have bigger issues to deal with besides whether or not China allows transgender gaming.  I don't play games as female toons and never will. I am a roleplayer but there is no way in hell any role I would want to play would involve me being the girl. Maybe you can say afer working at a prison for 6 years I didn't see too many people who enjoyed being the girl.

Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Toquio3

A black man [person] arrives at the hospital with a bullet wound in his abdomen. he will die if not operated. all the doctors are racists [don't want to treat him]. by your reasoning, they have the right not to treat this man, effectivelly killing him. [..]

(Note, edited to address the general case, since the answer is the same)

Yes, the doctor's have the right not to treat the man.  To say otherwise is to say that the man has the right to demand treatment.  If something is to be a right than it means it is something that can be legitimately enforced.  This would mean the man would be within his rights, that if denied treatment, to hold a gun to the doctor's head and demand treatment.  In effect this act is an assertion by the man that he owns the doctor. 

 

I think i missed the day at law scool when they discussed holding someone at gun point as a legitimate way to exercise rights...

Actually, the doctors cant refuse. We are talking both civil liability and prison here. Roth, dude, really i get the whole "get off my property" thing but the law doesnt work that way.

Edit; The irony here is that if the guy pulled a gun he would actually give the doctors a legitimate reason not to treat him. Most doctors ive met would do so even if the patient pulled a gun on them however. You can say a lot of things about MDs but most are pretty tough guys/girls and they do take their hippocratic oath quite seriously... Theres a lot of very extreme stories coming out of ERs. Tv has nothing on the real thing.

I'm male and I play female characters all the time in RPGs and MMOs. I figure if I'm gonna be playing these games for hours on end I'd much rather be staring at the backside of a female toon than a male toon.

Originally posted by Caleveira

Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Caleveira

Originally posted by rothbard

No, Jim Crow laws are illegitimate for the same reason a law forbidding restaurants to require jacket, or a law forbidding discrimination, are illegitimate.  They both usurp the rights of the owner.  They both seek to transfer control of something that is already owned by someone, to someone else.  This is actual oppression.

 Your rationale would give a bussiness owner the prerogative of refusing service to anyone they might dislike, or to otherwise limit the use of their facilities.

Yes, that is correct.

Yet you fail to see how that is in any way wrong?

Of course not, because it's not "wrong".  It may be that I dislike someone's reason for refusing service, but that is my preference.  Me simply not liking what he does with his property doesn't really entitle me to stick a gun in his face and tell him to stop does it?

Guess Rosa Parks was just infringing a companys rights when she refused to go to the back of the bus.

Rosa Parks is somewhat tricky since there were city ordinances (laws) that codified the "proper" treatment of blacks on buses.  So in that aspect Rosa Parks actions would be heroic, since she was acting in defiance of an actual unjust law.

On the other hand, if the bus line just had some crazy backwards bigotted passenger policy, she agreed to the conditions when she boarded the bus.   Refusing to abide and then refusing to leave is trespass.

This is what Jim Crow laws were meant to accomplish.

No.  If everyone already wanted to exclude people there would be no reason to have a law requiring it.  The point of Jim Crow laws was to prevent, by force, any change in the social order that the people in power preferred.  They made discrimination mandatory so as to prevent non-discriminating businesses from competing with the discriminators.

Jim Crow was brought about by the Status Quo to preserve itself. Yes, i will agree that they were meant to discourage competition, but the bottom line is they protected entitlement by the bussiness base to their practices. If you want to go into economics this was protectivism at its worse-

I can't decipher whether we agree on this point or not...

Once you make a public offer of your services (such as an "open" sign) you have an obligation not to refuse service without legitimate reasons.

But the point is any reason is legitimate since it is my service that is being offered.

No, its not. Running out of stock or a delivery area not being cost effective for you to pursue are legitimate reasons. Whatever goes on inside your head its not. 

Why not?  Who gets to decide what are the legitimate ways to dispose of my own things?  Who decides what I am allowed to think?

Your view that ownership rights are more important than basic human civility is shared by no country or society in the world, except perhaps by islamic regimes which enforce Dhimmi status upon religious minorities and foreigners.

Yes ownership rights are more important than human civility.  Without ownership rights their can be no real human civility.  A religious regime enforcing a status upon minorites is in fact denying the ownership rights of its people, so your example is really the opposite of what you intended.  Dhimmi status is just like Jim Crow.

Civilty is not based on property and it predates it in the historical sense. Respect for human dignity should be the foundation of social interaction. No property is involved in this forums and yet we would be expected to be civil. We dont own our accounts but we are entitled to our identities as those are intrinsic.

Property makes civility possible.  Of course property is involved in this forum.  MMORPG.com owns the forums, and at least leases the physical resources on which it is run.  We all participate here because the owners' choose to allow us to.  As for identities I would say that the idea of property and ownership does not even apply since an identity is not a thing.  

Everyone has the right to demand any services they can pay for as long as it is within law and reason.

No they don't.  What if it is not for sale?  Do you have the right to demand that I bend over, so long as you can pay?  No, because this isn't for sale, no matter how much you want to pay.  An exchange of service for payment requires to willing participants, or else it is not really an exchange.

If its not for sale then its not being offered. I had already implied an offer being made. Youre actually in breach of contract if you refuse to provide me with a service that you have advertised, which is the reason ads contain small print. This is aside from the discrimination issue.

How can there be a contract until the parties have come to an agreement?

As a lawyer i cant legally refuse service to someone on the grounds that theyre libertarians for instance...

I hate that for you, but you should be able to refuse service to whoever you damn well please.

Lawyers would be in a difficult position if they had to like their clients. There are plenty of legitimate reasons i can refuse to counsel anyone. My disaproval of them is not one.

 Finally, you seem to have a very outdated view of the law. If you see law as force then youre missing the point that humans can only be free when living in free societies. Freedom is not such if youre alone, and in order to be free amongst others there must be laws. Good laws free people, bad laws opress them. The law uses force only to prevent violence or to ammend it. Yes, fraud is violence. There is a difference in between individuals forcing their will on others and the courts administering justice.

All law is force.  Modern positive law is simply the decrees of the rulers, enforced by the police power of the state.  Modern "democratic" law is no different than the decrees of Pharaoh or Caesar.

Of course an isolated individual is totally free because there is no one to object.  The concept of property and ownership make no sense in a world of an isolated individual.

When others enter the scene is when problems can arise.  Yes, in order for all the individuals to flourish to their chosen extent there must be some kind of rule.  This is what would be called an ethic.  Any conflict that may occur between the people is ultimately a conflict over the use of scarce resources (physical things).  Thus the job of an ethic is to assign the control of resources to people, so an individual can know what he is allowed to do at any given moment, in order to avoid conflict.  This is what property is for.

There is no difference between individuals forcing their will on others and the courts administering "justice", if the law of the court is simply the decree of the current gang running the show.

Originally posted by Caleveira

Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Toquio3

A black man [person] arrives at the hospital with a bullet wound in his abdomen. he will die if not operated. all the doctors are racists [don't want to treat him]. by your reasoning, they have the right not to treat this man, effectivelly killing him. [..]

(Note, edited to address the general case, since the answer is the same)

Yes, the doctor's have the right not to treat the man.  To say otherwise is to say that the man has the right to demand treatment.  If something is to be a right than it means it is something that can be legitimately enforced.  This would mean the man would be within his rights, that if denied treatment, to hold a gun to the doctor's head and demand treatment.  In effect this act is an assertion by the man that he owns the doctor. 

 

 

I think i missed the day at law scool when they discussed holding someone at gun point as a legitimate way to exercise rights...

Then me thinks you didn't really think about it very hard.  I admit to slight hyperbole, but only for impact.  The gun is ultimately always there.  It's just that we have people in special costumes that are the anointed monopolists of force.  Break the king's "law".  The police, if the law is mean anything, must enforce it.  This is done by force.  Thus, the gun.

Actually, the doctors cant refuse. We are talking both civil liability and prison here. Roth, dude, really i get the whole "get off my property" thing but the law doesnt work that way.

Obviously I know this.  But I reject that the "law" is legitimate to begin with.

Edit; The irony here is that if the guy pulled a gun he would actually give the doctors a legitimate reason not to treat him. Most doctors ive met would do so even if the patient pulled a gun on them however. You can say a lot of things about MDs but most are pretty tough guys/girls and they do take their hippocratic oath quite seriously... Theres a lot of very extreme stories coming out of ERs. Tv has nothing on the real thing

The fact that this is still going on is pathetic. IMO