HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Revanchist » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »

Revanchist

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Rhode Island
Current location: Missouri
Member since: Tue Mar 4, 2008, 10:45 AM
Number of posts: 1,014

About Me

Retired USN and widower currently stuck in the midwest

Journal Archives

SNL weekend update Alec Baldwin trump cold open

The last minute or so with trump bidding farewell to Bannon is amusing

Ten months to the day....

I lost my wife on Oct 29th. Her dog died in my arms yesterday morning in my bedroom where I found her after I came home from work. I cranked up the air conditioner and left him on the bed while I dug a grave under the bedroom window and laid him to rest. The damn house is so large and empty and for the first time in over a decade there is no one relying on me or demanding my attention. Life sucks

I have to come clean, I didn't vote in November.

I came home on Saturday, October 29th to find my wife of 19 years lying dead on our bedroom floor. Every day since has been a struggle to keep functioning, let alone to care about the what will happen to this country in the long term. Frankly, my main purpose is to outlive my parents so they don't have to go through what happened to my MIL, who lost both her kids within a year of each other. After that, right now I don't care what happens.

In actuality it should be either Mrs. Clinton, Senator Clinton or the Honorable Hillary Clinton

There can only be one SoS at a time because it is a role held by a single person and not a rank that is bestowed upon several people at once. Since there are many Senators then that title can be kept after they leave office and once an honorable, always an honorable.

Once she's elected it will be President Hillary Clinton and the honorable Bill Clinton, even though he has held the office of the president in the past.

http://www.formsofaddress.info/former.html#FO003

Regardless of this ruling, I hope the prosecutors decide to move forward on charges.

This man thinks he did nothing wrong and this ruling simply confirms it in his mind (at least that's my opinion). At the very least, this should be sexual assault. As the article states, it is very difficult to prove acquaintance rape cases but perhaps the burden of proof will be easier for the beating.

But she withdrew consent when she said no.

the article state that he never told her exactly what he was going to do to her and it sounds like there was no command to make him stop.

I have a problem with people saying she consented and after that anything goes. If I was with a partner and I consented to be tied up but then they started to do things I didn't expect or thought they would do is it still consent? Suppose they decide to use something like this:



An electric shock wand on various parts of my body and I said no but they continued, is it my fault for agreeing in the first place and now too bad I gave consent? Once it started hurting and she said no it's no longer a consensual act, it's sexual assault and/or criminal battery.

Unless they removed the law from the books

Unless they removed the law from the books you are able to withdraw consent during intercourse in Illinois:

In addition, in 2003 Illinois became the first state to pass a law allowing a person to withdraw consent at any time during sexual intercourse. Therefore, even if you are engaged in a consensual sex act once one party says “no” any sex act thereafter becomes rape.


So as soon as she said no, it became sexual assault, at the very least.

BDSM can be tricky

You need to make sure both parties know exactly what is going on and have a mutually agreed upon safe word to stop all activities. It seems as if Mohammad had no idea how to engage in BDSM and I would have no heartache if the prosecutor decides to pursue the case in some form or another because from the information provided he is culpable of sexual assault at the very least.

In a true BDSM relationship it is the submissive who has the power to stop interaction at anytime due to the safe word, without this it cannot be consensual because he had both the power and control, and that just becomes violence and abuse.

The Best-Selling, Billion-Dollar Pills Tested on Homeless People

Found this article while working on my ethics class in HCA.

Snip from middle of article

To find people like Harold, some contract research organizations have employees visit room-and-boards and homeless shelters. In Philadelphia I met a man named Ed Burns, who explained to me how these recruiters work. Burns and his wife had been on the street for over two years when we spoke; he said they had trouble getting space in shelters, even though his wife is pregnant and Burns has bipolar disorder and depression. “I was on Depakote and I almost killed someone out of anger,” he said. “It made me a wrecking machine.” Burns was living in a shelter when he got a message saying that someone from the Veterans Affairs hospital was waiting outside for him. But when he went outside, he said, he was met by a representative of a research company known as CRI Worldwide.

“I was tired, I was hungry, and half an hour earlier the police had treated us like crap,” Burns said. “And this woman is saying, ‘Imagine, in 40 days you’ll have $4,000!’ The recruiter made testing drugs sound like a vacation in a five-star hotel, Burns said. “It’s like a resort selling time shares. They talk about all the benefits first, and it sounds great, but then you start to ask: What do I have to do?”

Not long ago, such offers would have been considered unethical. Paying any volunteer was seen as problematic, even more so if the subjects were poor, uninsured, and compromised by illness. Payment, it was argued, might tempt vulnerable subjects to risk their health. As trials have moved into the private sector, this ethical calculus has changed. First came a hike in the sums that volunteers could be paid: Many clinical trial sites now offer over $6,000 for an inpatient drug study. Eligibility requirements have changed, too. For years, trial sites paid only healthy volunteers, mainly to test new drugs for safety. These days people with asthma, diabetes, kidney disease, liver disease, and other conditions can be paid take part in trials.

https://medium.com/matter/did-big-pharma-test-your-meds-on-homeless-people-a6d8d3fc7dfe


This story is the first in a two-part investigative special on problems in the clinical trials industry. The second, which asks why disgraced doctors are allowed to test drugs on human volunteers, is available here

I don't know what to say, this is just sickening.
Go to Page: 1 2 Next »