<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Head-scratcher roundup</title>
	<atom:link href="http://donklephant.com/2007/03/13/head-scratcher-roundup/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/03/13/head-scratcher-roundup/</link>
	<description>Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:08:28 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: hiraethin</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/03/13/head-scratcher-roundup/comment-page-1/#comment-267078</link>
		<dc:creator>hiraethin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 08:28:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2007/03/13/head-scratcher-roundup/#comment-267078</guid>
		<description>Interesting post.

As to what&#039;s reasonable, I find it amusing that parents might find themselves in the situation where they are being billed for &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; availing themselves of a service for one or more days. Billing might make more sense if the parents were also getting a tax refund for the days missed. I can understand that the government, and the schools, seek to maximise attendance, and incentives to avoid missed days are reasonable in that sense. But where I come from, sending bills which are legally optional (i.e., where there is no actual financial liability), is called fraud.

As to what&#039;s criminal, a contradictory standard - or contradictory body of precedent, in the absence of a decreed or agreed standard - as to what constitutes obsence material seems to be a frail structure on which to base judicial decisions. IMHO the standard should be that recordings of non-consensual indecent assaults purveyed for other than official or academic purposes constitute obscene material, but that&#039;s just my view.

As to what&#039;s ethical, prisoners are clearly the weaker partner in an imbalanced power relationship, just as employees are in their relationship with employers. Just as this imbalanced relationship makes a sexual liaison unethical between employer and employee, the relationship between prisoner and corrections system puts the prisoner at risk in any such decision, even where coercion is not applied, because the prisoner&#039;s ability to make a reasonable decision is under pressure simply because they are are prisoner.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting post.</p>
<p>As to what&#8217;s reasonable, I find it amusing that parents might find themselves in the situation where they are being billed for <i>not</i> availing themselves of a service for one or more days. Billing might make more sense if the parents were also getting a tax refund for the days missed. I can understand that the government, and the schools, seek to maximise attendance, and incentives to avoid missed days are reasonable in that sense. But where I come from, sending bills which are legally optional (i.e., where there is no actual financial liability), is called fraud.</p>
<p>As to what&#8217;s criminal, a contradictory standard &#8211; or contradictory body of precedent, in the absence of a decreed or agreed standard &#8211; as to what constitutes obsence material seems to be a frail structure on which to base judicial decisions. IMHO the standard should be that recordings of non-consensual indecent assaults purveyed for other than official or academic purposes constitute obscene material, but that&#8217;s just my view.</p>
<p>As to what&#8217;s ethical, prisoners are clearly the weaker partner in an imbalanced power relationship, just as employees are in their relationship with employers. Just as this imbalanced relationship makes a sexual liaison unethical between employer and employee, the relationship between prisoner and corrections system puts the prisoner at risk in any such decision, even where coercion is not applied, because the prisoner&#8217;s ability to make a reasonable decision is under pressure simply because they are are prisoner.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dr Jail and Mr Bail &#171; Eclectics Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/03/13/head-scratcher-roundup/comment-page-1/#comment-266899</link>
		<dc:creator>Dr Jail and Mr Bail &#171; Eclectics Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 06:33:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2007/03/13/head-scratcher-roundup/#comment-266899</guid>
		<description>[...] Sean Aqui argues out that this is a rather slippery slope and points out that the organs of people executed* in China are regularly harvested (his word) for use. He continues IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢d be very, very wary of taking this step. I donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t have a problem in principle with compensating donors. The problems are all practical. It only works if the entire transaction is fully transparent, and everyone is fully informed and truly a volunteer. The possibilities of abuse are high. And it exploits a vulnerable population. ItÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s one thing to donate a kidney or bone marrow, even though both operations have their risks. What about muscle tissue or nerves or things like that? Suddenly weÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re in a grey area where weÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re mildly crippling prisoners. Do we really want people to start thinking about what body part theyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re willing to trade for freedom? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Sean Aqui argues out that this is a rather slippery slope and points out that the organs of people executed* in China are regularly harvested (his word) for use. He continues IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢d be very, very wary of taking this step. I donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t have a problem in principle with compensating donors. The problems are all practical. It only works if the entire transaction is fully transparent, and everyone is fully informed and truly a volunteer. The possibilities of abuse are high. And it exploits a vulnerable population. ItÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s one thing to donate a kidney or bone marrow, even though both operations have their risks. What about muscle tissue or nerves or things like that? Suddenly weÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re in a grey area where weÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re mildly crippling prisoners. Do we really want people to start thinking about what body part theyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re willing to trade for freedom? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bob in fl</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/03/13/head-scratcher-roundup/comment-page-1/#comment-266872</link>
		<dc:creator>bob in fl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 05:23:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2007/03/13/head-scratcher-roundup/#comment-266872</guid>
		<description>Sean, your web site is n0ot responding.

#1.  In the 50s, there was a lot of heated discussion Federal aid for education  because it would eventually take decisions away from the local school districts &amp; voters. Sounds like the nay sayers were The blackmail that comes with outside financial aid leads to dumb decisions like this one.

#2   The courts have ruled against such laws. That is the way it needs to remain. To make the issue go through the courts again is financial blackmail due to attorney&#039;s fees. Dumb idea.

#3   Those who refuse to donate a body part will pay for that decision, dearly. That is just the reality of prison life. Like Sean said, also a very slippery slope, legally. Refer to #1 for an example.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sean, your web site is n0ot responding.</p>
<p>#1.  In the 50s, there was a lot of heated discussion Federal aid for education  because it would eventually take decisions away from the local school districts &amp; voters. Sounds like the nay sayers were The blackmail that comes with outside financial aid leads to dumb decisions like this one.</p>
<p>#2   The courts have ruled against such laws. That is the way it needs to remain. To make the issue go through the courts again is financial blackmail due to attorney&#8217;s fees. Dumb idea.</p>
<p>#3   Those who refuse to donate a body part will pay for that decision, dearly. That is just the reality of prison life. Like Sean said, also a very slippery slope, legally. Refer to #1 for an example.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reduce Sentence For Donating Organs? &#124; The Moderate Voice</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2007/03/13/head-scratcher-roundup/comment-page-1/#comment-266671</link>
		<dc:creator>Reduce Sentence For Donating Organs? &#124; The Moderate Voice</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2007 01:56:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/2007/03/13/head-scratcher-roundup/#comment-266671</guid>
		<description>[...] Sean Aqui talks about the slippery slope here. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Sean Aqui talks about the slippery slope here. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
