US Court Upholds "Safe Space" for Florida Gun Owners

[fskimospy]

Two helpful resources for people still trying to understand what an appeal to authority is. I've bolded the important parts for the exceptionally dim among us. 🙂

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

The argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) also appeal to authority, is a common argument form which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise, or when the authority cited is not a true expert.

 

[glenn1]

Nah, not really. There's a wider range of things that I think warrant government intervention than you do but you're much more extreme in the level of intervention when it covers your interests. Usually that happens when you're trying to use the power of government to attack groups you don't like.

You're acting like I was the legislator who proposed this measure. I support the rights of sovereign citizens to choose their own levels of intervention without any consideration of whether it "covers my interests" or not. If your state wants to restrict large sodas, go for it. Want to impose gun control (short of outright prohibition) or make handguns exceedingly hard to get, have at it. My job as a citizen is not to save other citizens from their bad (but constitutional) choices. Hell, I think 95% of your choices and opinions are terrible but if you want to vote for them or live in a state that legislates them, hey that's what freedom is about.

 

[HumblePie]

Two helpful resources for people still trying to understand what an appeal to authority is. I've bolded the important parts for the exceptionally dim among us. 🙂

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Eski

You have not presented an authority with a direct assertion to the question I had proposed. All you keep stating is that inane little question over and over that doctors should know what is best with the hints that anyone saying otherwise don't know what is best.

That is by definition a logic fallacy.

Until you actually put forth an actual credible source with actual credible evidence, your appeals are just that.

 

[fskimospy]

Eski

You have not presented an authority with a direct assertion to the question I had proposed. All you keep stating is that inane little question over and over that doctors should know what is best with the hints that anyone saying otherwise don't know what is best.

That is by definition a logic fallacy.

Until you actually put forth an actual credible source with actual credible evidence, your appeals are just that.

I have no words to describe the scope of how stupid and willfully ignorant you are.

 

[HumblePie]

I have no words to describe the scope of how stupid and willfully ignorant you are.

You are the woefully ignorant one. The only counter argument you have made to my point that there is no medical reason to ask patients about their gun ownership status if there is no immediate danger to the patient has constantly been.

"Shouldn't we let the doctor's decide what is right to ask?"

That is a logic fallacy and a dodge. But I took your bait and answered with the fact that the Florida Medical Board withdrew their opposition to the law after amendments they wanted were made to address their initial concerns over the law as well as linking to a blog from a doctor in Florida who agrees with the law and the ruling.

 

[glenn1]

You are the woefully ignorant one. The only counter argument you have made to my point that there is no medical reason to ask patients about their gun ownership status if there is no immediate danger to the patient has constantly been.

"Shouldn't we let the doctor's decide what is right to ask?"

That is a logic fallacy and a dodge. But I took your bait and answered with the fact that the Florida Medical Board withdrew their opposition to the law after amendments they wanted were made to address their initial concerns over the law as well as linking to a blog from a doctor in Florida who agrees with the law and the ruling.

For some reason which is evidently baffling to Eskimospy and his ilk, no states allow doctors complete discretion on their speech with clients as it's a professional conduct issue. Like I said before, if we accepted Eskimospy's First Amendment argument, we could throw out vast sections of state law like this from his home state of New York. For example, in his mind NY directly limits doctor speech rights without deference to their expert opinion on lots of subjects, take for example the prohibition on "the promotion of the sale of services, goods, appliances, or drugs in such manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or of a third party." That's an unconstitutional limit on physician "free speech" in his mind.

 

[fskimospy]

For some reason which is evidently baffling to Eskimospy and his ilk, no states allow doctors complete discretion on their speech with clients as it's a professional conduct issue. Like I said before, if we accepted Eskimospy's First Amendment argument, we could throw out vast sections of state law like this from his home state of New York. For example, in his mind NY directly limits doctor speech rights without deference to their expert opinion on lots of subjects, take for example the prohibition on "the promotion of the sale of services, goods, appliances, or drugs in such manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or of a third party." That's an unconstitutional limit on physician "free speech" in his mind.

No it isn't. It's baffling that you would even think so.

You're not a dumb guy, I'm sure you can figure out why prohibitions on conflicts of interest might be constitutional limits on free speech but irrational ones for questions about gun ownership are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny

 

[HumblePie]

For some reason which is evidently baffling to Eskimospy and his ilk, no states allow doctors complete discretion on their speech with clients as it's a professional conduct issue. Like I said before, if we accepted Eskimospy's First Amendment argument, we could throw out vast sections of state law like this from his home state of New York. For example, in his mind NY directly limits doctor speech rights without deference to their expert opinion on lots of subjects, take for example the prohibition on "the promotion of the sale of services, goods, appliances, or drugs in such manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or of a third party." That's an unconstitutional limit on physician "free speech" in his mind.

That's why he keeps going back and forth on his defenses. The opinion statements all the rulings on this law by all judges all state that the state of Florida is allowed to enact regulations on doctor speech as it applies to professional conduct. None of the judges or lawyers are even stating that restrictions can't be made.

Most of the opponents of the law are not arguing this law isn't a valid restriction. Not as eski and others in this thread have implied numerous times, but that the restriction is vague undue. The reason the court has upheld the law is because the challenge of vague and undue's burden has not been met. Just claiming the law is vague and puts undue burden on doctors ability to provide medical care without actually backing those claims up was the main reason the judges sided with the law.

 

[fskimospy]

You are the woefully ignorant one. The only counter argument you have made to my point that there is no medical reason to ask patients about their gun ownership status if there is no immediate danger to the patient has constantly been.

"Shouldn't we let the doctor's decide what is right to ask?"

That is a logic fallacy and a dodge. But I took your bait and answered with the fact that the Florida Medical Board withdrew their opposition to the law after amendments they wanted were made to address their initial concerns over the law as well as linking to a blog from a doctor in Florida who agrees with the law and the ruling.

Physicians groups overwhelmingly oppose this law, including the AMA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the AAFP, etc, etc. Thank you for once again owning yourself.

 

[glenn1]

No it isn't. It's baffling that you would even think so.

You're not a dumb guy, I'm sure you can figure out why prohibitions on conflicts of interest might be constitutional limits on free speech but irrational ones for questions about gun ownership are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_scrutiny

Lots to pick from; if you don't like that one you can go with the ban on doctor advertising using testimonials. Or ban on "willfully harassing, abusing, or intimidating a patient either physically or verbally." Or "guaranteeing that satisfaction or a cure will result from the performance of professional services." All cannot possibly be seen as anything but limits on free speech.

Or you can just stop while you're ahead and admit you're wrong, not that you will. States have the right to legislatively dictate what the medical standard of care is in their state, period full stop. Any appeal to the "expertise" of doctors will fail upon that point if the state has exercised that power as they have here.

You must really be intellectually invested in this insistence that doctors cannot be challenged or questioned in any way in how they care for patients, else you must feel like state medical discipline boards shouldn't exist either.

 

[HumblePie]

Physicians groups overwhelmingly oppose this law, including the AMA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the AAFP, etc, etc. Thank you for once again owning yourself.

Physician groups aligned with the Bradly Group and have stated in the past they are against gun ownership of any kind... yah color me surprised they oppose the law. They aren't even groups in Florida.

The Florida Medical Board and other doctor groups are for the law along with many individual doctors actually practicing medicine in Florida. Of course there are doctors practicing in Florida that oppose the law as well.

Just because there is opposition within the field doesn't mean your argument is instantly correct idiot. There are plenty of those in the medical industry that support the law as well which basically nullifies out your constant logic fallacy claim.

Just because you can point to group of doctors that oppose the law doesn't mean the law is wrong as you keep asserting. That why I never made the assertion that just because there are doctors that are for the law then the law must be right. That's a stupid way to argue but you keep doing it that way.

The point being, the law was drafted. The Florida Medical Board, the experts of medical health in Florida, was consulted. They had reservations and those reservations were made as amendment changes to the law before it was enacted. Once those changes were made, the review board was good to go with the law.

 

[fskimospy]

Lots to pick from; if you don't like that one you can go with the ban on doctor advertising using testimonials.

So advertising, not doctor's advice. Strike one.

Or ban on "willfully harassing, abusing, or intimidating a patient either physically or verbally."

Yes, abuse and intimidation are widely accepted limitations on free speech that affect all citizens, not just doctors. Strike two.

Or "guaranteeing that satisfaction or a cure will result from the performance of professional services." All cannot possibly be seen as anything but limits on free speech.

So no false statements, also perfectly constitutional. Strike three.

Or you can just stop while you're ahead and admit you're wrong, not that you will. States have the right to legislatively dictate what the medical standard of care is in their state, period full stop. Any appeal to the "expertise" of doctors will fail upon that point if the state has exercised that power as they have here.

You must really be intellectually invested in this insistence that doctors cannot be challenged or questioned in any way in how they care for patients, else you must feel like state medical discipline boards shouldn't exist either.

Your tactic here seems to be to attempt to transform what I've actually argued into the stupidest argument imaginable and then furiously battle against that. lol.

I have never once said that doctors should have no limits on their speech whatsoever, in fact I've repeatedly said that of course there can be limits on their speech, they just have to be constitutionally justifiable. In fact, one of the many times I said that was in the post you responded to.

Seriously, take your own advice and stop digging. This is embarrassing for you.

 

[fskimospy]

Physician groups aligned with the Bradly Group and have stated in the past they are against gun ownership of any kind... yah color me surprised they oppose the law. They aren't even groups in Florida.

The Florida Medical Board and other doctor groups are for the law along with many individual doctors actually practicing medicine in Florida. Of course there are doctors practicing in Florida that oppose the law as well.

Just because there is opposition within the field doesn't mean your argument is instantly correct idiot. There are plenty of those in the medical industry that support the law as well which basically nullifies out your constant logic fallacy claim.

Just because you can point to group of doctors that oppose the law doesn't mean the law is wrong as you keep asserting. That why I never made the assertion that just because there are doctors that are for the law then the law must be right. That's a stupid way to argue but you keep doing it that way.

Ahhh, so the largest and most prestigious groups of doctors in the country suddenly don't count. How convenient. As for Florida groups, the Florida chapter of the American Association of Pediatricians is actually one of the parties to the suit looking to overturn the law. lol. More self ownage by Humblepie. 🙂

Please, for your own sake so you stop looking so stupid, please go read up the materials I've given you on logical fallacies.

 

[glenn1]

So advertising, not doctor's advice. Strike one.

Yes, abuse and intimidation are widely accepted limitations on free speech that affect all citizens, not just doctors. Strike two.

So no false statements, also perfectly constitutional. Strike three.

Your tactic here seems to be to attempt to transform what I've actually argued into the stupidest argument imaginable and then furiously battle against that. lol.

I have never once said that doctors should have no limits on their speech whatsoever, in fact I've repeatedly said that of course there can be limits on their speech, they just have to be constitutionally justifiable. In fact, one of the many times I said that was in the post you responded to.

Seriously, take your own advice and stop digging. This is embarrassing for you.

Thankfully for all of us, you're not the judge of what's "constitutionally justifiable." Your argument such as it is lost in court. Repeatedly. Feel free to keep expressing your opinion about this, but the matter is settled law unless and until a higher level of judicial review takes place. Until then, I guess you'll just need to run public service announcements to remind people of how they're stupid and incapable of mitigating hazards in their home.

 

[fskimospy]

Thankfully for all of us, you're not the judge of what's "constitutionally justifiable." Your argument such as it is lost in court. Repeatedly. Feel free to keep expressing your opinion about this, but the matter is settled law unless and until a higher level of judicial review takes place. Until then, I guess you'll just need to run public service announcements to remind people of how they're stupid and incapable of mitigating hazards in their home.

Actually it's lost to a single judicial panel who issued a second, revised opinion after big holes were punched in it. Considering the matter is still under appeal it is by definition not settled law.

I think it's likely this law will be struck down either by the full circuit or SCOTUS. Then we can finally get authoritarians like you to stop irrationally meddling in the practice of medicine. How fun!

 

[glenn1]

Actually it's lost to a single judicial panel who issued a second, revised opinion after big holes were punched in it. Considering the matter is still under appeal it is by definition not settled law.

I think it's likely this law will be struck down either by the full circuit or SCOTUS. Then we can finally get authoritarians like you to stop irrationally meddling in the practice of medicine. How fun!

If it is then Florida can prosecute under existing statutes. Feel free to ask and add to medical records doctor, see you in jail.

Florida Statute 790.335 states- "No state governmental agency or local government, special district, or other political subdivision or official, agent, or employee of such state or other governmental entity or any other person, public or private, shall knowingly and willfully keep or cause to be kept any list, record, or registry of privately owned firearms or any list, record, or registry of the owners of those firearms. Any person who, or entity that, violates a provision of this section commits a felony of the third degree."

 

[ivwshane]

If it is then Florida can prosecute under existing statutes. Feel free to ask and add to medical records doctor, see you in jail.

Florida Statute 790.335 states- "No state governmental agency or local government, special district, or other political subdivision or official, agent, or employee of such state or other governmental entity or any other person, public or private, shall knowingly and willfully keep or cause to be kept any list, record, or registry of privately owned firearms or any list, record, or registry of the owners of those firearms. Any person who, or entity that, violates a provision of this section commits a felony of the third degree."

Sweet! So the conspiracy part of the issue has already been covered by existing law and the removal of the law being discussed in this thread shouldn't be an issue then right?

 

[glenn1]

Sweet! So the conspiracy part of the issue has already been covered by existing law and the removal of the law being discussed in this thread shouldn't be an issue then right?

You're right, maybe we should remove the FOPA so we can start prosecuting. Doctors aren't subject to "interference in how they practice medicine" but of course they won't have license to practice for long after. And what's great is that prosecution will also mean they won't be asking that question in any other states either. Win win.

 

[fskimospy]

You're right, maybe we should remove the FOPA so we can start prosecuting. Doctors aren't subject to "interference in how they practice medicine" but of course they won't have license to practice for long after. And what's great is that prosecution will also mean they won't be asking that question in any other states either. Win win.

But remember, you're not an authoritarian.

 

[glenn1]

But remember, you're not an authoritarian.

Hey, I resolved your First Amendment concern yet you still complain. You're starting to run out of arguments except for ad hominems.

 

[werepossum]

And? You afraid the government is gonna start a gun roundup by parsing medical records from pediatrician's offices? 😀

Please. According to several posters in this thread, their doctors asked no such thing.

I'm sure you can find one who doesn't ask or will accept a non-answer.

lol Just like gay people can surely find another baker willing to make them a wedding cake and black people can surely find another restaurant willing to serve them, eh?

STIs can cause morbidity/mortality as can guns (or pools, or not wearing seat belts, etc.). What things represent greater danger? Who says the federal government wants it? Where are you getting any of this information?

The federal government makes it part of their Electronic Medical Records template, which means that most if not all software developers will include it lest they be pressured with their own version of Operation Choke Point. President Obama issued an Executive Order telling doctors that nothing in the ACA (including the language substituted to mollify the NRA and its supporters) prohibits them from asking this question. Neither of these things happened for pools or seat belt use. Pools for instance represent a huge danger to small children, yet a health care provider pulling up your EMR cannot tell if you have a pool; there is no field for that. You cannot with any credibility assert that the federal government under Obama does not want this information compiled.

Lol stupid rage.

States can regulate professional statement so long as they serve a legitimate state purpose. This doesn't.

Again, you're just so overcome with rage that you can't think clearly. So sad for you.

😀 "Legitimate state purpose" of course being defined by the progressive agenda, not the actual legislators elected for that very purpose.

Gotta give you credit, you can twist into shapes no vertebrate could hope to match.

 

[jackstar7]

lol Just like gay people can surely find another baker willing to make them a wedding cake and black people can surely find another restaurant willing to serve them, eh?

Gun owners: still not a protected class.

 

[fskimospy]

lol Just like gay people can surely find another baker willing to make them a wedding cake and black people can surely find another restaurant willing to serve them, eh?

Interesting, I must have missed the inclusion of gun owners in the various civil rights acts that the feds and states have. (and who knew that gun ownership was an intrinsic characteristic!)

Can you point me to these statutes? I'm excited to read them.

😀 "Legitimate state purpose" of course being defined by the progressive agenda, not the actual legislators elected for that very purpose.

Gotta give you credit, you can twist into shapes no vertebrate could hope to match.

Legitimate state purpose in terms of constitutionality being defined by the courts, the same as it has always been. Let me guess though, the courts are part of the grand conspiracy too.

I have to give you credit, there are few people who say things as stupid as some of the things you say with such an air of confidence, haha.

 

[werepossum]

This guy has to be one of the stupidest people on this forum and that's saying a lot. Doctors aren't experts on guns, they are experts on risks to human health, of which improperly stored guns are one.

Bullshit. Do you consult a doctor to figure out whether a three-point lifting harness has a sufficient safety factor? What about a crack in a 707 fuselage? Spalling in an overpass support structure. Concentration of grain dust in a building built to Class 2 Division 2 hazardous location standards? All of these things can constitute a severe risk to human health.

Doctors are experts on MEDICINE. Nothing else. You bring in a doctor as an expert on a case hinging around proper gun safety and you would look like an idiot. Like, for instance, now, when you are attempting to present doctors as experts on gun safety for no other reason than advancing your agenda.

 

[werepossum]

Interesting, I must have missed the inclusion of gun owners in the various civil rights acts that the feds and states have. (and who knew that gun ownership was an intrinsic characteristic!)

Can you point me to these statutes? I'm excited to read them.

Legitimate state purpose in terms of constitutionality being defined by the courts, the same as it has always been. Let me guess though, the courts are part of the grand conspiracy too.

I have to give you credit, there are few people who say things as stupid as some of the things you say with such an air of confidence, haha.

You actually want to assert that the Second Amendment offers no protection but the various civil rights acts do?

lol Of course you do - it's useful at the moment.