Is this your first time on slashdot?

I'd rather have that than have the Democrats and liberals selling dead baby parts to the highest bidder.

Hand up for all those that have no idea what it refers to.

Of course there are no people. Look what happened to all the pedestrians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Yes, but that's a social hack, not a technological one.

Actually, the Wikipedia article I linked to explicitly says that my definition is what most people consider to be correct. It's only a new generation of 'dinosaur experts' that have decided they don't like that definition, and have came up with a new classification system. Now, only one particular group of ancient reptiles counts as dinosaurs, based solely on their hip joint, even though many of that group don't fit at all the classic view of dinosaurs.

As a point of fact, the term 'dinosaur' is itself mis-descriptive because neither part of the word is particularly accurate to the new classification. I guess the word should join phlogiston on the heap of discredited scientific lore.

---------------

Fine. I get it. New crops of scientists have different views from their predecessors. They look at things from a different angle, make different assumptions, and produce different classifications. Eventually new models are agreed on, even though those new models are also open to re-interpretation by the next wave of scientists. So, just as I'll wait for Pluto to again be called a planet in its own right, I'll wait for dinosaurs to include ancient reptiles that seem to fit the template better than the hummingbird does.

Well, sure, if you redefine the word 'dinosaur'.

Oh look. That's what they did.

I'll stick with the old definition of dinosaur: reptiles that lived millions of years ago.

My first thought on that was that surely crocodiles, alligators, and turtles are also modern descendants of the dinosaur lineage. I don't think they evolved from small mammals.

I honestly do not know what your point here is.

Actually, the governor just did that by vetoing it.

"The state" is the entity that does the licensing. It has the authority to determine what doctors can, can't, or must do in various situations. Usually, these rules are made with input from medical professionals, or written by the medical community itself, then passed into law through the state legislature, and signed by the governor.
In this case, this one rule change was stopped at that last point. Why you are attacking me for pointing that out is ... Actually, again, I don't know what that is, other than misguided.

Not that that has been mentioned above, but I'm sure judges use their authority given to them by the same state that licenses medical professionals, when they make medical decisions.
You may not agree with them, but you can't prove your claim of "medical fraud".

????? Again, no idea what your point is.

It doesn't take being a licensed medical professional (doctor, nurse, dentist, psychiatrist, etc.) to understand a law that applies to them. By the way, laws don't grant rights, whichever ones you may be claiming here. Laws may define or stipulate a certain authority, responsibility, or privilege, especially for groups that work within other rights observed by the system.
So get back to me when you actually understand the laws which you are trying to attack. So far you have just been tilting at windmills.

The post I responded to specifically was about raving lunatics. Are you sure doctors can't already detain raving lunatics in the state this article is about?

The first response to that post denied that raving lunatics can be detained, and for proof it was stated that they can be detained. I pointed out the error of that post.

Now, you are just as blind in your reaction, making a statement you surely don't know the accuracy of, because of some personal bias that isn't my concern.

So, I will state again, for all you idiots out there: If a person is a raving lunatic,which implies being an immediate danger to themselves and others, the legal and medical systems already have laws/rules/procedures in place to handle the situation. Period. End of lecture.

Apparently, since the governor vetoed the bill that would have allowed/required doctors to do so, it is not their fucking job to detain their patients in this way. Other states surely have different rules, but we are not talking about those states here.

It's funny you mention I learn the word jurisprudence, since it obviously is outside your ken.

Wow. Way to take a joke far too seriously.

So my point that a "raving lunatic" can be detained is wrong because the police can detain him.

Thanks for the clarification.

Only if the person has a uterus that is supporting an unwanted resident at the moment.

What did the sister do that the husband couldn't have done at the start? He surely knew his wife had this condition, but he did nothing except file for divorce?

I believe that counts as a danger to yourself. Please have a seat in this room, while I make a completely unrelated phone call to the police station.