In article <[email protected]>, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.reddit.com/r/humor/comments/zd9ae/2012_dnc_convention_schedule/
>
It would be funnier if it wasn't true!
In article <[email protected]>, Han
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
A right? Paid for by others?
What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
--
"You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full
of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the
clue mating dance." -- Edward Flaherty
In article <[email protected]>, Han
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in
> news:080920121248464473%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Han
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
> >
> > A right? Paid for by others?
> >
> > What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
>
> David, with all respect, I disagree. Because it is part of "insurance" you
> as an individual do pay for this birth control (or in limited circumstances
> it is paid for by the insurance company because it is cheaper than
> pregnancy and delivery). It isn't paid for by "others". /THAT/ is a
> crock.
You claim it is a right. It is not. Not here in Canada, not under the
US constitution, and not under any international treaty. That is a
crock.
You argue that religions should not be allowed to enforce their tenets,
yet you insist your tenets must be universally adhered to. That is
hypocrisy.
--
"You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full
of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the
clue mating dance." -- Edward Flaherty
In article <[email protected]>, Mike Marlow
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Han wrote:
>
> >
> > Dave, it is my hypocrisy???? I don't care what you believe or not,
> > but as soon as you or anyone else is going to prescribe what I can or
> > cannot do, I will speak up. Anyone can as far as I am concerned
> > refuse to use birth control (if the partner agrees, otherwise it is
> > rape). If you prohibit me from using it, then you are the hypocrit.
>
> Han - you are the Master of mis-statement. Rape has a definition - go look
> it up. One could have willing sex without birth control. Birth control is
> not a component of rape. That's where your ideas really run weird. You
> take things to unreal lengths.
>
> But - you are indeed saying exactly what Dave suggested - you proclaim that
> noone should prescribe what you can or cannot do, but you suggest that very
> power in the declarations you make of others.
>
> >
> > The ACA makes birth control a part of healthcare, that makes it a
> > right to me.
>
> Finally - you said it the right way... it makes it a right TO YOU. That
> however does not make it a right. It just means you consider it to be so.
+1
In article <[email protected]>, Han
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > Han wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Dave, it is my hypocrisy???? I don't care what you believe or not,
> >> but as soon as you or anyone else is going to prescribe what I can or
> >> cannot do, I will speak up. Anyone can as far as I am concerned
> >> refuse to use birth control (if the partner agrees, otherwise it is
> >> rape). If you prohibit me from using it, then you are the hypocrit.
> >
> > Han - you are the Master of mis-statement. Rape has a definition - go
> > look it up. One could have willing sex without birth control. Birth
> > control is not a component of rape. That's where your ideas really
> > run weird. You take things to unreal lengths.
> >
> > But - you are indeed saying exactly what Dave suggested - you proclaim
> > that noone should prescribe what you can or cannot do, but you suggest
> > that very power in the declarations you make of others.
>
> Mike, perhaps you misread what I meant. I'll spell it out <grin>:
> If one of the partners having sex demanded that no birth control be used,
> while the other wanted that, I will consider that rape.
>
> >> The ACA makes birth control a part of healthcare, that makes it a
> >> right to me.
> >
> > Finally - you said it the right way... it makes it a right TO YOU.
> > That however does not make it a right. It just means you consider it
> > to be so.
>
> SCOTUS said ACA was OK ... It's not just me.
Aren't your legs tired from all this back-pedalling, Han?
--
"Let's just admit that public education is mediocre at best." -- Frank Zappa
Han wrote:
>
> I googled for "why is the catholic church against birth control" and
> this was the first hit:
> http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control
>
> Seems to say "unnatural" is the reason for the prohibition of any
> form of birth control, reasoning repeated over and over in different
> ways.
Ok - got ya. I had originally taken your earlier use of the term
"unnatural" differently. I thought you were trying to make a different
point.
>
> Please note that a very large majority of catholics do practice birth
> control. Which makes official prohibition utterly hypocritical, or at
> least the reason for unwanted anxieties about sinning (whatever that
> is).
>
Agreed. But - that's what makes different religions - different strokes for
different folks.
>
> There is no reason other than antediluvial preconceived and wrong
> ideas for the prohibition. Therefore, the prohibition should be
> lifted.
But that's the nature of beliefs like this. They may seem illogical or even
foolish to you and I - so we don't belong to that organization. But - they
make perfect sense to the believers, so they subscribe. That's their
choice. Where the danger comes in IMHO, is when you and I presume to
determine that a belief is illogical and should be abolished - on behalf of
someone else.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 09 Sep 2012 00:46:40 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> But
>the shingles vaccine ($250 total cost) is not completely covered. There
>is a deductable ($200/year) and then Aetna covers 80% of the remainder.
>
Our United Healthcare plan has a co-pay of $95 for the shingles
vaccine. GET IT! My wife recently had shingles and she would have
paid many times that not to have them. Well, not really, she would
have had me pay to get rid of them.
Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 09 Sep 2012 00:46:40 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> But
>>the shingles vaccine ($250 total cost) is not completely covered.
>>There is a deductable ($200/year) and then Aetna covers 80% of the
>>remainder.
>>
>
> Our United Healthcare plan has a co-pay of $95 for the shingles
> vaccine. GET IT! My wife recently had shingles and she would have
> paid many times that not to have them. Well, not really, she would
> have had me pay to get rid of them.
I'm going to get it. But I want to get rid of the last vestiges of my
whooping cough first. Then first that TDaP vaccine, and a week or so
after that, the shingles vaccine.
Have you had your TDaP within the last 10 years, Ed? If not, prepare for
over 2 months of horrible coughing, and you can't see your grandkids
during that time!!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> http://www.reddit.com/r/humor/comments/zd9ae/2012_dnc_convention_schedule/
Come on Tim - don't you think this is a bit out of line - even for an OT
post?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
> What about boner pills (Viagra, Cialis, etc) for those who have a
> medical need?
I knew that had to come up! I just didn't want to be the one to bring it
up!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
>
> I guess I am not making myself clear. If catholics or their
> institutions do not want to supply birth control, they don't have to.
> The insurance plan they "sell" to their employees have voluntarily
> decided to supply birth control, without charge. That should be the
> end of the discussion. The employees then can decide to follow
> catholic "doctrine" or not.
Why should that be the end of the discussion? Come on Han - you are trying
to be the dictator again here. That in no way should be the end of the
discussion - whether you want to declare it or not. They do not "sell" that
insurance to their employees. Look into it - they OFFER it. That is quite
a different matter, regardless of the quotes you used to hide your known
misrepresentation of that statement. It is not up to you to decide what
they "should" do, based on your liberal thoughts. You need to recognize the
difference between your own opinions and what everyone else should do, just
because you have an opinion.
Even at that - you just contradicted yourself. Your have now turned this
from a topic of what the hospital offers to patients, to what they offer to
employees, and then you even wrapped it further around a pole by saying that
the employee can decide to follow Catholic doctrine or not. Han - I don't
think you even know what you believe. I think you want to believe the most
liberal interpretation possible, but in reality - you don't.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 09/06/2012 02:09 PM, Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:5cjmh9-t2r2.ln1
> @ozzie.tundraware.com:
>
>> On 09/06/2012 06:56 AM, Han wrote:
>>> Are you saying we should go back to governing Taliban-style?
>>
>> How far away from this are we when your Fine President gets to jam
>> policies down the throat of the Catholic church which are against
>> their beliefs, all in the name of "the common good" (aka "the tribe")?
>
> First of all, I have no pity on the catholic church, which is antediluvial
> in its policies. If we let the catholic church dictate law, then we'll
> have to let the ultra-orthodox muslims commit honor killings. In my book,
> anyone is free to follow their individual beliefs, but religion has no
> place DICTATING law. As you darn well know, the objections of the catholic
> church were heard and dealt with. No one who objects to those birth
> control or abortion policies has to pay. Period.
>
First of all, to equate RC theology and practice in this time with
Muslim extremist is pathetic and revolting and you should appologize
to both Catholics and the reasonable Muslim majority for this kind
of rhetoric.
As to the rest of your point: So freedom of religion only applies
when you decide it's OK?
Finally - and hopefully reeling you back into Reality - no one makes someone
join the RC church nor attend one of their schools. Making that choice
comes with conditions - conditions that the overbearing buffoons in the Obama
administration have no business interfering with.
P.S. I am not RC - in fact, I disagree with them on all manner of things.
But I am on the side of liberty, and in this case it means supporting
the Roman church...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 09/07/2012 12:22 PM, Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>> They can believe as they want, Mike. But they want to prescribe
>>> things to everyone they come into contact with, such as hospitals and
>>> their patients, even if much of their funding comes from the feds.
>>> No go.
>>
>> I can see their point Han. They operate by their beliefs - just like
>> you or I do. Don't you see it as a bit wrong for you, or I, or a
>> governement to dictate to them how they should operate - despite their
>> beliefs? I do. If you don't like their beliefs, then don't go to
>> their hospital.
>
> I guess I am not making myself clear. If catholics or their institutions
> do not want to supply birth control, they don't have to. The insurance
> plan they "sell" to their employees have voluntarily decided to supply
> birth control, without charge. That should be the end of the discussion.
> The employees then can decide to follow catholic "doctrine" or not.
>
But that is NOT what happened here. The Worst Administration In 100 Years
decided to try and force an RC university to make birth control available
as part of their insurance place. The school said, "No, this is against
our beliefs", so the Obama buffoons tried to do a quick game of misdirection
by saying, "No, no, no. YOU don't have to offer it, your INSURANCE company
does." The RCs also objected to this.
In short Obama and is pests decided to interfere with a private sector
institution and then FORCE their insurance company to offer something
the school objects to.
The right way to do this is to tell the schoo, "Fine you don't have to offer
anything of the sort. However, this will disqualify you from any sort
of Federal aid, and your students will not be eligible for Federal funds
either." Then each party can decide what is more important.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
In article <[email protected]>, Ed Pawlowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:48:46 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Han
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
> >
> >A right? Paid for by others?
> >
> >What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
>
>
> But there is some economic sense to it.
> As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for birth control for irresponsible
> welfare recipients, nor do I want to pay for their kids. What is the
> best way to handle this?
Policy and rights are totally different arguments. The "best way to
handle this" is a policy question.
> I'd rather pay a few bucks a month for some form of birth control
> rather than welfare for 18+ years for an unwanted child.
Good for you. You can lobby for a policy change. Birth control as a
condition of receiving welfare, perhaps? Still, not a right. Policy.
> Pay one time for a vasectomy or monthly for a pride of babies
> scattered around town?
Policy. Not a right.
--
Woodworking and more at <http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:48:46 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Han
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
> >
> >A right? Paid for by others?
> >
> >What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
>
>
> But there is some economic sense to it.
> As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for birth control for irresponsible
> welfare recipients, nor do I want to pay for their kids. What is the
> best way to handle this?
>
> I'd rather pay a few bucks a month for some form of birth control
> rather than welfare for 18+ years for an unwanted child.
>
> Pay one time for a vasectomy or monthly for a pride of babies
> scattered around town?
Given that Welfare at this point in time doesn't have a time limit and
having kids after getting on it gets rewarded, IMO any woman applying
for Welfare should be required to get an implant, an IUD, or a tubal
ligation before getting her second payment.
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote in
news:080920121329391626%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca:
> In article <[email protected]>, Ed Pawlowski
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:48:46 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, Han
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>> >
>> >A right? Paid for by others?
>> >
>> >What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
>>
>>
>> But there is some economic sense to it.
>> As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for birth control for irresponsible
>> welfare recipients, nor do I want to pay for their kids. What is the
>> best way to handle this?
>
> Policy and rights are totally different arguments. The "best way to
> handle this" is a policy question.
>
>> I'd rather pay a few bucks a month for some form of birth control
>> rather than welfare for 18+ years for an unwanted child.
>
> Good for you. You can lobby for a policy change. Birth control as a
> condition of receiving welfare, perhaps? Still, not a right. Policy.
>
>> Pay one time for a vasectomy or monthly for a pride of babies
>> scattered around town?
>
> Policy. Not a right.
Birth control pills are not only to prevent pregnancy, but for a number
of female conditions. But that is just ancillary. Birth control is part
of responsible health care, and so worth it on a grand scheme of things
(see Larry's remarks). Nothing in this abrogates individual choice ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:48:46 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Han
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>
>A right? Paid for by others?
>
>What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
But there is some economic sense to it.
As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for birth control for irresponsible
welfare recipients, nor do I want to pay for their kids. What is the
best way to handle this?
I'd rather pay a few bucks a month for some form of birth control
rather than welfare for 18+ years for an unwanted child.
Pay one time for a vasectomy or monthly for a pride of babies
scattered around town?
Dave wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 20:20:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>> Me too. The word is now effectively meaningless, unless used by the
>> liberal left where it means "I can't answer your arguments point for
>> point, because logic is even harder than math."
>
> Bullshit. A racist comment is something that is as simple as labeling
> one particular group of people with a derogatory description. ~
> Something that you appear to like doing without putting much thought
> or consideration into it first.
>
Actually, the term requires a reference to race, not just a group of people.
From Webster...
Definition of RACISM
1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and
capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a
particular race
2
: racial prejudice or discrimination
On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 20:20:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>Me too. The word is now effectively meaningless, unless used by the
>liberal left where it means "I can't answer your arguments point for
>point, because logic is even harder than math."
Bullshit. A racist comment is something that is as simple as labeling
one particular group of people with a derogatory description. ~
Something that you appear to like doing without putting much thought
or consideration into it first.
In effect, you're inconsiderate, selfish and discriminatory. All these
things make you a closet racist. You probably don't act the same way
out in public because you'd get a punch in the nose. But, you don't
hesitate to say pretty much what you want here because the chances of
repercussion are minimal at best.
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:41:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
Just for discussion sake, here's my thoughts.
>You honestly can think of an occupation as a race? Low income as a
>race?
Not initially, certainly not, they wouldn't be a race. But I was
theorizing that over time and under certain conditions, they could be
come one.
Image a whole group of a particular occupation went off on their own
and created their own country. They formed their own religion,
procreated just within their own socio economic status and became
unique among themselves. How long would it take before they were
considered a race? A couple of hundred years?
What drew them together (occupation, physical characteristics,
specific values) doesn't matter. It's what they became after they
formed their own unique group. How else were current races created?
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 07:31:04 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 09/08/2012 07:09 AM, Han wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> But that's the nature of beliefs like this. They may seem illogical
>>>>> or even foolish to you and I - so we don't belong to that
>>>>> organization. But - they make perfect sense to the believers, so
>>>>> they subscribe. That's their choice. Where the danger comes in
>>>>> IMHO, is when you and I presume to determine that a belief is
>>>>> illogical and should be abolished - on behalf of someone else.
>>>>
>>>> I got you too <grin>.
>>>> My "beef" is that religious institutions do an enormous amount of
>>>> good. IMO, they squander that when they impose their beliefs on
>>>> others, whether or not those others adhere in one way or another to
>>>> the beliefs of the religious institution.
>>>
>>> I think we're coming around full circle on this, so maybe we should
>>> let it fade away, but in my (attempted...) closing thought - the very
>>> real danger that I see is that what you are trying to avoid is what
>>> you are trying to do. So... to take your position of not forcing
>>> beliefs on another, by requiring the RC to support birth control (for
>>> example), you are in effect doing that very thing. Forcing your
>>> beliefs (and your view of logic as you understand it), on others.
>>> Catch-22.
>>>
>>> Han - thanks. I've enjoyed batting this around a bit. Especially
>>> since it was really an academic exercise to some degree, since I don't
>>> even believe in the RC position. To some degree, it's a tolerance
>>> thing to me. I disagree with them, but I tolerate them because that's
>>> their beliefs.
>>
>> My thanks to you too. You have made me clarify my reasoning.
>> Simply stated:
>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for. For
>> institutions and individuals who may be the only provider in town, it is
>> illegal and immoral to refuse these rights, no matter what they believe
>> in for themselves.
>>
>
>What about boner pills (Viagra, Cialis, etc) for those who have a
>medical need?
I thought we were entitled to the _pursuit_ of happiness, not
guaranteed "happy endings." ;)
--
Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before
which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air.
-- John Quincy Adams
On 9/8/2012 2:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:48:46 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>>
>> A right? Paid for by others?
>>
>> What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
>
>
> But there is some economic sense to it.
> As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for birth control for irresponsible
> welfare recipients, nor do I want to pay for their kids. What is the
> best way to handle this?
>
> I'd rather pay a few bucks a month for some form of birth control
> rather than welfare for 18+ years for an unwanted child.
>
> Pay one time for a vasectomy or monthly for a pride of babies
> scattered around town?
>
The truth to the matter though is that you will pay for birth control
and later on pay for the child after the slip.
On 09/07/2012 09:04 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>
>> The right way to do this is to tell the schoo, "Fine you don't have
>> to offer anything of the sort. However, this will disqualify you
>> from any sort of Federal aid, and your students will not be eligible for
>> Federal
>> funds either." Then each party can decide what is more important.
>
> Although this is indeed how the Federal government manipulates states and
> other organizations it wants to "influence", I have to disagree that this
> would be the proper way. To me, this is extortion and is a practice the
> Federal government should be prohibited from performing.
>
And this is where the conservative narrative falls apart. When you take
someone's money, you take the conditions that go with it. There is no
"extortion". The RC folks could decide what is more important: Their
religious principles or Federal money. You don't get to take the piper's
money and then scream about how bad the tune is ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 09/08/2012 07:09 AM, Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> But that's the nature of beliefs like this. They may seem illogical
>>>> or even foolish to you and I - so we don't belong to that
>>>> organization. But - they make perfect sense to the believers, so
>>>> they subscribe. That's their choice. Where the danger comes in
>>>> IMHO, is when you and I presume to determine that a belief is
>>>> illogical and should be abolished - on behalf of someone else.
>>>
>>> I got you too <grin>.
>>> My "beef" is that religious institutions do an enormous amount of
>>> good. IMO, they squander that when they impose their beliefs on
>>> others, whether or not those others adhere in one way or another to
>>> the beliefs of the religious institution.
>>
>> I think we're coming around full circle on this, so maybe we should
>> let it fade away, but in my (attempted...) closing thought - the very
>> real danger that I see is that what you are trying to avoid is what
>> you are trying to do. So... to take your position of not forcing
>> beliefs on another, by requiring the RC to support birth control (for
>> example), you are in effect doing that very thing. Forcing your
>> beliefs (and your view of logic as you understand it), on others.
>> Catch-22.
>>
>> Han - thanks. I've enjoyed batting this around a bit. Especially
>> since it was really an academic exercise to some degree, since I don't
>> even believe in the RC position. To some degree, it's a tolerance
>> thing to me. I disagree with them, but I tolerate them because that's
>> their beliefs.
>
> My thanks to you too. You have made me clarify my reasoning.
> Simply stated:
> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for. For
> institutions and individuals who may be the only provider in town, it is
> illegal and immoral to refuse these rights, no matter what they believe
> in for themselves.
>
What about boner pills (Viagra, Cialis, etc) for those who have a
medical need?
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 09/08/2012 10:58 AM, Han wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 09/08/2012 07:09 AM, Han wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But that's the nature of beliefs like this. They may seem
>>>>>> illogical or even foolish to you and I - so we don't belong to
>>>>>> that organization. But - they make perfect sense to the
>>>>>> believers, so they subscribe. That's their choice. Where the
>>>>>> danger comes in IMHO, is when you and I presume to determine that
>>>>>> a belief is illogical and should be abolished - on behalf of
>>>>>> someone else.
>>>>>
>>>>> I got you too <grin>.
>>>>> My "beef" is that religious institutions do an enormous amount of
>>>>> good. IMO, they squander that when they impose their beliefs on
>>>>> others, whether or not those others adhere in one way or another to
>>>>> the beliefs of the religious institution.
>>>>
>>>> I think we're coming around full circle on this, so maybe we should
>>>> let it fade away, but in my (attempted...) closing thought - the
>>>> very real danger that I see is that what you are trying to avoid is
>>>> what you are trying to do. So... to take your position of not
>>>> forcing beliefs on another, by requiring the RC to support birth
>>>> control (for example), you are in effect doing that very thing.
>>>> Forcing your beliefs (and your view of logic as you understand it),
>>>> on others. Catch-22.
>>>>
>>>> Han - thanks. I've enjoyed batting this around a bit. Especially
>>>> since it was really an academic exercise to some degree, since I
>>>> don't even believe in the RC position. To some degree, it's a
>>>> tolerance thing to me. I disagree with them, but I tolerate them
>>>> because that's their beliefs.
>>>
>>> My thanks to you too. You have made me clarify my reasoning.
>>> Simply stated:
>>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>>> For institutions and individuals who may be the only provider in
>>> town, it is illegal and immoral to refuse these rights, no matter
>>> what they believe in for themselves.
>>>
>>
>> What about boner pills (Viagra, Cialis, etc) for those who have a
>> medical need?
>
> Going by the fact that since long ago those pills were given to veterans
> (that is my recollection from some session in the Manhattan VA), I'd say
> there is an established "right" to those as well, perhaps on a limited
> ration. I suggest researching this to you, my simple search gave silly
> answers, as google sometimes does.
>
Not covered, even partially, by medicare or supplemental insurance and
very expensive.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 09/08/2012 05:24 PM, Han wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 09/08/2012 10:58 AM, Han wrote:
>>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 09/08/2012 07:09 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that's the nature of beliefs like this. They may seem
>>>>>>>> illogical or even foolish to you and I - so we don't belong to
>>>>>>>> that organization. But - they make perfect sense to the
>>>>>>>> believers, so they subscribe. That's their choice. Where the
>>>>>>>> danger comes in IMHO, is when you and I presume to determine
>>>>>>>> that a belief is illogical and should be abolished - on behalf
>>>>>>>> of someone else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I got you too <grin>.
>>>>>>> My "beef" is that religious institutions do an enormous amount of
>>>>>>> good. IMO, they squander that when they impose their beliefs on
>>>>>>> others, whether or not those others adhere in one way or another
>>>>>>> to the beliefs of the religious institution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we're coming around full circle on this, so maybe we
>>>>>> should let it fade away, but in my (attempted...) closing thought
>>>>>> - the very real danger that I see is that what you are trying to
>>>>>> avoid is what you are trying to do. So... to take your position
>>>>>> of not forcing beliefs on another, by requiring the RC to support
>>>>>> birth control (for example), you are in effect doing that very
>>>>>> thing. Forcing your beliefs (and your view of logic as you
>>>>>> understand it), on others. Catch-22.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Han - thanks. I've enjoyed batting this around a bit. Especially
>>>>>> since it was really an academic exercise to some degree, since I
>>>>>> don't even believe in the RC position. To some degree, it's a
>>>>>> tolerance thing to me. I disagree with them, but I tolerate them
>>>>>> because that's their beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> My thanks to you too. You have made me clarify my reasoning.
>>>>> Simply stated:
>>>>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>>>>> For institutions and individuals who may be the only provider in
>>>>> town, it is illegal and immoral to refuse these rights, no matter
>>>>> what they believe in for themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What about boner pills (Viagra, Cialis, etc) for those who have a
>>>> medical need?
>>>
>>> Going by the fact that since long ago those pills were given to
>>> veterans (that is my recollection from some session in the Manhattan
>>> VA), I'd say there is an established "right" to those as well,
>>> perhaps on a limited ration. I suggest researching this to you, my
>>> simple search gave silly answers, as google sometimes does.
>>>
>>
>> Not covered, even partially, by medicare or supplemental insurance and
>> very expensive.
>
> Perhaps in your plan this is so, but ...
>
> I have an Aetna supplemental to Medicare plan. Max # of tablets you can
> get is 6 pills/30 days or 18/90 days. Costs are $136.08 ($40 copay) and
> $372.77 ($80 copay) for retail resp mailorder of the 50 mg dose. Caveat:
> They say these are estimated costs, perhaps differnt in real life. Years
> ago the drug pusher made me try some, no effect on me then.
>
I mispoke - it's my medicare part D plan for drugs, not a supplement
plan, and mine is through Medco. Medicare explicitly states in the
medicare explanation booklet that there is no coverage through part D
for ED drugs. I have checked with my part D plan and they verify.
I haven't heard of any supplement plans that supply drugs beyond part D.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On 09/06/2012 06:56 AM, Han wrote:
> Are you saying we should go back to governing Taliban-style?
How far away from this are we when your Fine President gets to jam
policies down the throat of the Catholic church which are against
their beliefs, all in the name of "the common good" (aka "the tribe")?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
Han wrote:
>>
>> You thought wrong. I'm NOT on a "host of medications."
>
> That's where the disclaimer "I thought" came in. Apologies offered.
> Blame it on an old memory system. Sorryyyy!
I understand. For some, when faced with a position that differs from their
own, their first reaction is often "He must be off his meds..."
On 09/05/2012 08:24 PM, DanG wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 8:16 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/humor/comments/zd9ae/2012_dnc_convention_schedule/
>>
>
>
> I sure am tired of this closed mind bigoted political stuff. I don't understand why 500 some fairly intelligent people can meet on our behalf and behave like little kids with the "he said..., he did... did to did not.....syndromes. There has to be some intelligent, legal, productive directions to steer this country and the world. Attacking the other party just because it is the other party makes no sense to me, and I hope is making less and less sense to others.
>
> My dad is 92 and he says he's been waiting for the same thing his whole life.
>
'nature of the beast - people are tribal.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:09:39 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 09/07/2012 12:22 PM, Han wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> They can believe as they want, Mike. But they want to prescribe
>>>> things to everyone they come into contact with, such as hospitals and
>>>> their patients, even if much of their funding comes from the feds.
>>>> No go.
>>>
>>> I can see their point Han. They operate by their beliefs - just like
>>> you or I do. Don't you see it as a bit wrong for you, or I, or a
>>> governement to dictate to them how they should operate - despite their
>>> beliefs? I do. If you don't like their beliefs, then don't go to
>>> their hospital.
>>
>> I guess I am not making myself clear. If catholics or their institutions
>> do not want to supply birth control, they don't have to. The insurance
>> plan they "sell" to their employees have voluntarily decided to supply
>> birth control, without charge. That should be the end of the discussion.
>> The employees then can decide to follow catholic "doctrine" or not.
>>
>
>But that is NOT what happened here. The Worst Administration In 100 Years
>decided to try and force an RC university to make birth control available
>as part of their insurance place. The school said, "No, this is against
>our beliefs", so the Obama buffoons tried to do a quick game of misdirection
>by saying, "No, no, no. YOU don't have to offer it, your INSURANCE company
>does." The RCs also objected to this.
>
>In short Obama and is pests decided to interfere with a private sector
>institution and then FORCE their insurance company to offer something
>the school objects to.
>
>The right way to do this is to tell the schoo, "Fine you don't have to offer
>anything of the sort. However, this will disqualify you from any sort
>of Federal aid, and your students will not be eligible for Federal funds
>either." Then each party can decide what is more important.
Perzactly! And if the simple hiring of A layman doctor and A layman
nursing staff for a small birth control office in each hospital or
school doesn't fix the requirement, Obamacare was written poorly.
Who'da thunk it? If the hospital or school wishes not to do even
that, then they can (and -should- be able to) forfeit gov't
cooperation.
--
Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before
which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air.
-- John Quincy Adams
Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 23:28:26 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> The way
>> to change it is to... well... ummm... oh hell, I don't know...
>
> And that is the problem. Washington warned against political parties
> and it didn't take very long to prove him right - the negative
> campaigning against Jefferson was as bad as today, they just didn't
> have the media we do.
>
> As long as people are elected, and those with money can push their
> agenda with financial support, nothing is going to change - including
> their ability to influence.
>
> Maybe it's time for a new party, but that attempt has a pretty solid
> failure rate - it just doesn't have the money to compete.
>
> The best we can do is vote for the lesser of two weevils.
Agreed. I'd love to vote Libertarian, just to work at paring government
down a few orders of magnatude, but there's no chance they could ever win.
We really do need another party, but like you, I just don't see it coming
any time soon. And you are right - it all comes down to money.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Mike Marlow wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/humor/comments/zd9ae/2012_dnc_convention_schedule/
>
> Come on Tim - don't you think this is a bit out of line - even for an
> OT post?
Ok - got caught in a trap. Did not even bother to look at the link, only
the subject line. I hereby change my vote to YEA!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> And this is where the conservative narrative falls apart. When you
> take someone's money, you take the conditions that go with it. There
> is no "extortion". The RC folks could decide what is more important:
> Their religious principles or Federal money. You don't get to take
> the piper's money and then scream about how bad the tune is ...
I don't see it that way Tim. That money is for a specific purpose, and IMHO
should not be used to leverage the wishes of the Feds. Admitedly, my
contention probably plays a little more cleanly in the matter of the Feds
holding back funds from States, than it does in this particular point, but
the principle applies all the same. Now - if the Feds were to say that of
the total amount of money they have to offer a hospital X% is earmarked for
abortion services (or any other service for that matter), and the hospital
opted not to offer that service, I would be fine with them not receiving the
X%.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
>
> I just can't get my head around the refusal of the catholic church to
> even permit birth control. I am not asking them to promote birth
> control (though that would be great too!), but to just allow it.
Why Han? Can you not accept that they (others) have a different belief?
Why should they conform to your wishes or your beliefs? That just does not
sound like other things I've read from you.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> The problem here is that the Feds should not be involved in ANY of
> this - the funding OR setting hospital policy. But as long as people
> take government money, they have to take the strings that go with it.
>
> My undergrad was at a very conservative Protestant school. This
> institution did not wish to be told what to do by the government
> as regards to hiring, admittance policy, and all the rest of the
> politically correct drool that passes for "tolerance". So, they
> simply refused all forms of government handouts. The school itself
> did not accept them and they did not accept government grant money
> on behalf of the students. Problem solved. This is how the RC
> schools and hospitals should also solve it: Don't accept Federal
> funding or Medicaid patients and the morons in D.C. would have
> nothing to say.
I know that various institutions have taken that stand - and good for them.
It's just my opinion that the Feds should not be that heavy handed. Just my
opionion, but in my mind it should not be an all or nothing thing. That's
where the extortion part comes in, IMHO. I hold to a different belief than
you on the matter of taking funds - I don't believe it should be the case
that if you take any funding, you play by all of their rules. But - that's
just my opinion.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 9/7/2012 12:22 PM, Han wrote:
> I guess I am not making myself clear. If catholics or their institutions
> do not want to supply birth control, they don't have to.
According to your next statement, the above is made very unclear. :)
> The insurance
> plan they "sell" to their employees have voluntarily decided to supply
> birth control, without charge.
?? This sentence makes no sense, perhaps because it is grammatically
suspect.
Who is doing the deciding?
Who is "they", and who pays for the insurance?
> That should be the end of the discussion.
> The employees then can decide to follow catholic "doctrine" or not.
Not if "they" (Catholics?) are indeed paying the premium for the
insurance that provides free birth control, but just not availing
themselves of it.
That is arguably neither a choice, nor following doctrine. :)
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
They should respect the
separation of church and state
Where in the Constitution does it say anything about "separation of church
and state"?
In article <080920121248464473%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca says...
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Han
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>
> A right? Paid for by others?
>
> What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
I wouldn't call it a right, but making it as available as possible is to
me a matter of sound social policy. I can see where someone who thinks
that sex should should be only for the purpose of reproduction would
think otherwise, however they should not be allowed to make this choice
for others.
In article <090920122022368519%dave***@balderstone.ca>,
dave***@balderstone.ca says...
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Han
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >
> > > Han wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Dave, it is my hypocrisy???? I don't care what you believe or not,
> > >> but as soon as you or anyone else is going to prescribe what I can or
> > >> cannot do, I will speak up. Anyone can as far as I am concerned
> > >> refuse to use birth control (if the partner agrees, otherwise it is
> > >> rape). If you prohibit me from using it, then you are the hypocrit.
> > >
> > > Han - you are the Master of mis-statement. Rape has a definition - go
> > > look it up. One could have willing sex without birth control. Birth
> > > control is not a component of rape. That's where your ideas really
> > > run weird. You take things to unreal lengths.
> > >
> > > But - you are indeed saying exactly what Dave suggested - you proclaim
> > > that noone should prescribe what you can or cannot do, but you suggest
> > > that very power in the declarations you make of others.
> >
> > Mike, perhaps you misread what I meant. I'll spell it out <grin>:
> > If one of the partners having sex demanded that no birth control be used,
> > while the other wanted that, I will consider that rape.
> >
> > >> The ACA makes birth control a part of healthcare, that makes it a
> > >> right to me.
> > >
> > > Finally - you said it the right way... it makes it a right TO YOU.
> > > That however does not make it a right. It just means you consider it
> > > to be so.
> >
> > SCOTUS said ACA was OK ... It's not just me.
>
> Aren't your legs tired from all this back-pedalling, Han?
The Supremes didn't really say anything about birth control though, the
issue was whether the government could force people to buy something
they didn't want. It turns out that it can, but that doing so is a
tax--in effect it is the official position of the Supreme Court that
Barack Obama is a liar.
Han wrote:
>>
>> So - for the sake of the conversation... what would be wrong with a
>> facility not offering everything? That really would not be so
>> different from the way things already are. If a facility does not
>> offer what you want, you have to go to a different facility. That
>> leaves room for choices based upon beliefs, based upon capability,
>> etc. (choices on the part of the facility). My thoughts are that if
>> the Fed reach to the level of mandating everything based upon their
>> funding, that we reach a point of the Feds dictating - and that is
>> philosophically bad in my mind.
>
> That would be ideal, and it should work in New York City, where there
> easily could be choice. Perhaps also in Portland, OR. But would it
> work in Amarillo, Tx and smaller cities in the middle of nowhere?
> And this would leave out the whole of whether or not birth control
> (or whatever) is a right. Birth control is not as demanding on
> facilities and expertise as heart valve replacement, while being
> perhaps more economically useful.
I am reliably informed that a round-trip bus ticket from Amarillo to Dallas
can be had for $98. Or, if you're in a hurry, Southwest Airlines has a round
trip for thirty-eight dollars more.
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 09/05/2012 08:24 PM, DanG wrote:
>> On 9/4/2012 8:16 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>> http://www.reddit.com/r/humor/comments/zd9ae/2012_dnc_convention_sche
>>> dule/
>>>
>>
>>
>> I sure am tired of this closed mind bigoted political stuff. I don't
>> understand why 500 some fairly intelligent people can meet on our
>> behalf and behave like little kids with the "he said..., he did...
>> did to did not.....syndromes. There has to be some intelligent,
>> legal, productive directions to steer this country and the world.
>> Attacking the other party just because it is the other party makes no
>> sense to me, and I hope is making less and less sense to others.
>>
>> My dad is 92 and he says he's been waiting for the same thing his
>> whole life.
>>
>
> 'nature of the beast - people are tribal.
Are you saying we should go back to governing Taliban-style? I hope not.
Someone help me, but I seem to remember that the FF designed our form of
government so that /enlightened/ self-interest would put the country
before pure greed.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Han wrote:
>
> We seem to be going round and round on this point. For the sake of my
> argument you have to assume that the particular hospital (or doctor,
> pharmacist, health care supplier) is the only one of its kind for the
> local population. This may happen much more often than you think
> (despite cheap buses or flights between Armadillo and Dallas).
Han - you are contriving unreal situations to make your points. This is
just not the way it is. You may be able to find a local area that is only
served by one medical source, but even if you could it would be anamoly. We
aren't going in circles, it's more that you are making more and more
undefendabe points, which rely on more and more unrealistic circumstances.
Even if it did happen - so what? Your point is still not defendable.
>
> If the institution can deny to its customers certain services on the
> basis of its religious convictions, rather than the law, then it is
> religion dictating the government.
Bullshit. That is freedom of choice. What you suggest is dictating
relgion. Religion in your argument is dictating nothing. Govt is doing or
you are doing the dictating. Religion is simply abstaining from things they
don't agree with. You simply cannot accept that religion would do that and
you argue assnine ways in which you try to force religion to accept and to
do the things you want. Han - stop for just a moment. Quit trying to
rationalize your thinking. Just stop and take a look at the very things you
are saying.
> At least in my opinion. As I have
> said before, the CUSTOMER may decide that his/her religious
> convictions prevent him/her to accept or ask for certain services,
> but (IMO) the institution cannot dictate its beliefs on the customer.
Very frustrating. What about the institution's right to decide what they
will provide? It's not all about the CUSTOMER, as you call it. Where in
the world did that idea even come from?
>
> I don't like it when religious persons knock on my door with their
> sermons and pamphlets, but I accept their feeling they have to do
> this in obligation to their faith. So I politely tell them "no thank
> you". But I would only engage them in discussion if I were feeling
> like that, not upon their insistence to do so.
So - what in the world does that have to do with all of this? Han - it is
becoming more and more apparent that you are simply intolerant of religious
beliefs. You seem to want to dictate (in your futile efforts to
rationalize) your own beliefs and impose them upon religions, yet hide from
this by your rationizations. It's not working. As much as you may want to
appear to be a tolerant person, quite the opposite is shining through from
your own comments. It's not where I first thought you were coming from.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> The problem with the word logic is that like beauty, it lies in the
>> eye of the beholder. I find their position to be completely logical
>> in the context of their beliefs - or restated... I understand why
>> they believe that. I disagree with it, but it is still logical.
>
> Disagree, sorry. If the premise on which the logic is based is
> false, then the whole reasoning collapses. Unless you believe in a
> flat earth with the sun revolving around it.
Well - there is a lot of evidence that the Bible speaks of a round earth, so
the argument about a flat earth has only a limited reach.
A Catholic who genuinely believes in the RC position on birth control would
ask you or I how we could be so confident that the premise is false. Enter
the gray areas of faiths.
As for reasoning - we have not disagreed on our particular belief of the
Catholic reasoning - that's not the point. The point is that they are
entitled to their reasoning. We may consider it illogical. They believe
the premise is valid. In the context of a religion, they even have some
level of evidence for that belief. You can't apply logic fully to religious
beliefs. They embrace things that by their very nature, defy what we can
conclude as logical. Take for example, the very belief in God - not
something we can prove or disprove by applying logic. Even the evidences
that many believers would offer (from personal experiences) are very
subjective and would often fail the test of logic. But - believers would
say that logic is only part of the equation and that there are things that
supersede logic and even defy what we can conclude as logical.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> The problem with the word logic is that like beauty, it lies in the
>> eye of the beholder. I find their position to be completely logical
>> in the context of their beliefs - or restated... I understand why
>> they believe that. I disagree with it, but it is still logical.
>
> Disagree, sorry. If the premise on which the logic is based is
> false, then the whole reasoning collapses. Unless you believe in a
> flat earth with the sun revolving around it.
As soon as the government starts telling a religion that its beliefs are
"illogical" and flawed (and commands obedience to a morally objectional
law), we've entered the stairway to doom.
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 08 Sep 2012 02:14:40 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>
>>> The right way to do this is to tell the schoo, "Fine you don't have
>>> to offer anything of the sort. However, this will disqualify you
>>> from any sort of Federal aid, and your students will not be eligible
>>> for Federal funds either." Then each party can decide what is more
>>> important.
>>
>>Would indeed have been a cleaner way, but wouldn't that have led to
>>cries of blackmail?
>>
>>I just can't get my head around the refusal of the catholic church to
>>even permit birth control. I am not asking them to promote birth
>>control (though that would be great too!), but to just allow it.
>
> You wish for anything to do with a -church- to act -logically-?
> Dreamer. ;)
LOL!
We do live here in the US in a society based on Judeo-Christian values
(values which may or may not coincide with most other religions or
absence of religions). Ever since the ancient Greeks (at least), and
through the preservation of those values during the Middle Ages in
Islamic culture and science, logic has supported and extended those same
values. So, yes, I do expect logic from a church. No matter what may be
"wrong" in some of the tenets or axioms of canon law, that law is still
argued logically. Since recently it was discovered by the church that
the Sun does NOT revolve around the Earth, other bases of the faith
should be re-examined as well. I have no compassion whatsoever for the
opinions of the catholic church in matters involving or bordering sex.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> The problem with the word logic is that like beauty, it lies in the
> eye of the beholder. I find their position to be completely logical
> in the context of their beliefs - or restated... I understand why they
> believe that. I disagree with it, but it is still logical.
Disagree, sorry. If the premise on which the logic is based is false, then
the whole reasoning collapses. Unless you believe in a flat earth with the
sun revolving around it.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> The problem with the word logic is that like beauty, it lies in the
>>> eye of the beholder. I find their position to be completely logical
>>> in the context of their beliefs - or restated... I understand why
>>> they believe that. I disagree with it, but it is still logical.
>>
>> Disagree, sorry. If the premise on which the logic is based is
>> false, then the whole reasoning collapses. Unless you believe in a
>> flat earth with the sun revolving around it.
>
> As soon as the government starts telling a religion that its beliefs
> are "illogical" and flawed (and commands obedience to a morally
> objectional law), we've entered the stairway to doom.
But it is OK for the religion to tell the government what it can do?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> The problem with the word logic is that like beauty, it lies in
>>>>> the eye of the beholder. I find their position to be completely
>>>>> logical in the context of their beliefs - or restated... I
>>>>> understand why they believe that. I disagree with it, but it is
>>>>> still logical.
>>>>
>>>> Disagree, sorry. If the premise on which the logic is based is
>>>> false, then the whole reasoning collapses. Unless you believe in a
>>>> flat earth with the sun revolving around it.
>>>
>>> As soon as the government starts telling a religion that its beliefs
>>> are "illogical" and flawed (and commands obedience to a morally
>>> objectional law), we've entered the stairway to doom.
>>
>> But it is OK for the religion to tell the government what it can do?
>
> Stomping foot hard on brake pedal! Please Han - explain where this
> statement comes from. In anticipation of your answer, I will say that
> with a representative government it is indeed fair for constituents to
> try to influence the government. But even at that, I can't see where
> you are coming from with the above statement.
We seem to be going round and round on this point. For the sake of my
argument you have to assume that the particular hospital (or doctor,
pharmacist, health care supplier) is the only one of its kind for the
local population. This may happen much more often than you think
(despite cheap buses or flights between Armadillo and Dallas).
If the institution can deny to its customers certain services on the
basis of its religious convictions, rather than the law, then it is
religion dictating the government. At least in my opinion. As I have
said before, the CUSTOMER may decide that his/her religious convictions
prevent him/her to accept or ask for certain services, but (IMO) the
institution cannot dictate its beliefs on the customer.
I don't like it when religious persons knock on my door with their
sermons and pamphlets, but I accept their feeling they have to do this in
obligation to their faith. So I politely tell them "no thank you". But
I would only engage them in discussion if I were feeling like that, not
upon their insistence to do so.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 08 Sep 2012 02:14:40 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>> The right way to do this is to tell the schoo, "Fine you don't have to
>> offer anything of the sort. However, this will disqualify you from
>> any sort of Federal aid, and your students will not be eligible for
>> Federal funds either." Then each party can decide what is more
>> important.
>
>Would indeed have been a cleaner way, but wouldn't that have led to cries
>of blackmail?
>
>I just can't get my head around the refusal of the catholic church to
>even permit birth control. I am not asking them to promote birth control
>(though that would be great too!), but to just allow it.
You wish for anything to do with a -church- to act -logically-?
Dreamer. ;)
--
Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before
which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air.
-- John Quincy Adams
Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> The problem with the word logic is that like beauty, it lies in the
>>>> eye of the beholder. I find their position to be completely
>>>> logical in the context of their beliefs - or restated... I
>>>> understand why they believe that. I disagree with it, but it is
>>>> still logical.
>>>
>>> Disagree, sorry. If the premise on which the logic is based is
>>> false, then the whole reasoning collapses. Unless you believe in a
>>> flat earth with the sun revolving around it.
>>
>> As soon as the government starts telling a religion that its beliefs
>> are "illogical" and flawed (and commands obedience to a morally
>> objectional law), we've entered the stairway to doom.
>
> But it is OK for the religion to tell the government what it can do?
Stomping foot hard on brake pedal! Please Han - explain where this
statement comes from. In anticipation of your answer, I will say that with
a representative government it is indeed fair for constituents to try to
influence the government. But even at that, I can't see where you are
coming from with the above statement.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
> We do live here in the US in a society based on Judeo-Christian values
> (values which may or may not coincide with most other religions or
> absence of religions). Ever since the ancient Greeks (at least), and
> through the preservation of those values during the Middle Ages in
> Islamic culture and science, logic has supported and extended those
> same values. So, yes, I do expect logic from a church. No matter
> what may be "wrong" in some of the tenets or axioms of canon law,
> that law is still argued logically. Since recently it was discovered
> by the church that the Sun does NOT revolve around the Earth, other
> bases of the faith should be re-examined as well. I have no
> compassion whatsoever for the opinions of the catholic church in
> matters involving or bordering sex.
The problem with the word logic is that like beauty, it lies in the eye of
the beholder. I find their position to be completely logical in the context
of their beliefs - or restated... I understand why they believe that. I
disagree with it, but it is still logical.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 23:28:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>Well then - run for office and change it. It's easy to sit at a
>>keyboard and repeat the same things your dad has said, isn't it? I
>>don't disagree that things need to change, but this isn't the way to
>>change it. The way to change it is to... well... ummm... oh hell, I
>>don't know...
>
> I suspect that a large number of people go into politics with the idea
> of changing thing for the better. And then, once they're there, they
> find out what kind of oppressive atmosphere they've really entered.
>
> I'm not saying that's an excuse for the way they run the country, just
> that it maybe a reason why it's happening.
So now we have social media to express our grievances and ask for
redress. Hold the Reps' etc feet to the fire.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:5cjmh9-t2r2.ln1
@ozzie.tundraware.com:
> On 09/06/2012 06:56 AM, Han wrote:
>> Are you saying we should go back to governing Taliban-style?
>
> How far away from this are we when your Fine President gets to jam
> policies down the throat of the Catholic church which are against
> their beliefs, all in the name of "the common good" (aka "the tribe")?
First of all, I have no pity on the catholic church, which is antediluvial
in its policies. If we let the catholic church dictate law, then we'll
have to let the ultra-orthodox muslims commit honor killings. In my book,
anyone is free to follow their individual beliefs, but religion has no
place DICTATING law. As you darn well know, the objections of the catholic
church were heard and dealt with. No one who objects to those birth
control or abortion policies has to pay. Period.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in news:bba4d$5048faac
[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> First of all, I have no pity on the catholic church, which is
>> antediluvial in its policies. If we let the catholic church dictate
>> law, then we'll have to let the ultra-orthodox muslims commit honor
>> killings. In my book, anyone is free to follow their individual
>> beliefs, but religion has no place DICTATING law. As you darn well
>> know, the objections of the catholic church were heard and dealt
>> with. No one who objects to those birth control or abortion policies
>> has to pay. Period.
>
> I'm not a Catholic, so I have no dog in this hunt Han, but I have to
> question your assertions above. In what way has the Catholic church
> dictated anything?
As I understand it they want to prescribe to their followers what they
can do or not with regard to birth control etc. That, in my book, is an
attempt at dictating.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:bba4d$5048faac [email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> First of all, I have no pity on the catholic church, which is
>>>> antediluvial in its policies. If we let the catholic church
>>>> dictate law, then we'll have to let the ultra-orthodox muslims
>>>> commit honor killings. In my book, anyone is free to follow their
>>>> individual beliefs, but religion has no place DICTATING law. As
>>>> you darn well know, the objections of the catholic church were
>>>> heard and dealt with. No one who objects to those birth control or
>>>> abortion policies has to pay. Period.
>>>
>>> I'm not a Catholic, so I have no dog in this hunt Han, but I have to
>>> question your assertions above. In what way has the Catholic church
>>> dictated anything?
>>
>> As I understand it they want to prescribe to their followers what
>> they can do or not with regard to birth control etc. That, in my
>> book, is an attempt at dictating.
>
> They have their beliefs - of course they try to prescribe to their
> followers. What else would a faith do Han? They believe in this
> stuff. Attempt at dictating? Come on Han - it's their damned faith.
> So what - everybody (including Catholics) should believe as you do?
> Wouldn't that be dictating? You can't seem to let them believe as
> they wish to...
They can believe as they want, Mike. But they want to prescribe things
to everyone they come into contact with, such as hospitals and their
patients, even if much of their funding comes from the feds. No go.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>> They can believe as they want, Mike. But they want to prescribe
>> things to everyone they come into contact with, such as hospitals and
>> their patients, even if much of their funding comes from the feds.
>> No go.
>
> I can see their point Han. They operate by their beliefs - just like
> you or I do. Don't you see it as a bit wrong for you, or I, or a
> governement to dictate to them how they should operate - despite their
> beliefs? I do. If you don't like their beliefs, then don't go to
> their hospital.
I guess I am not making myself clear. If catholics or their institutions
do not want to supply birth control, they don't have to. The insurance
plan they "sell" to their employees have voluntarily decided to supply
birth control, without charge. That should be the end of the discussion.
The employees then can decide to follow catholic "doctrine" or not.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 09/06/2012 02:09 PM, Han wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:5cjmh9-t2r2.ln1
>> @ozzie.tundraware.com:
>>
>>> On 09/06/2012 06:56 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> Are you saying we should go back to governing Taliban-style?
>>>
>>> How far away from this are we when your Fine President gets to jam
>>> policies down the throat of the Catholic church which are against
>>> their beliefs, all in the name of "the common good" (aka "the
>>> tribe")?
>>
>> First of all, I have no pity on the catholic church, which is
>> antediluvial in its policies. If we let the catholic church dictate
>> law, then we'll have to let the ultra-orthodox muslims commit honor
>> killings. In my book, anyone is free to follow their individual
>> beliefs, but religion has no place DICTATING law. As you darn well
>> know, the objections of the catholic church were heard and dealt
>> with. No one who objects to those birth control or abortion policies
>> has to pay. Period.
>>
>
>
> First of all, to equate RC theology and practice in this time with
> Muslim extremist is pathetic and revolting and you should appologize
> to both Catholics and the reasonable Muslim majority for this kind
> of rhetoric.
I apologize if I offended anyone. I just meant the statement as a wakeup
call. I am as much against any extremist religion as anyone.
> As to the rest of your point: So freedom of religion only applies
> when you decide it's OK?
Freedom of religion is a personal thing. When the institution is as big
and important to many as the catholic church, the persons in charge
should tread carefully and not dictate behavior. They should respect the
separation of church and state.
> Finally - and hopefully reeling you back into Reality - no one makes
> someone join the RC church nor attend one of their schools. Making
> that choice comes with conditions - conditions that the overbearing
> buffoons in the Obama administration have no business interfering
> with.
If there is a choice with everything being equal, that is certainly true.
Sometimes the choice isn't that equal, as in when a hospital or doctor is
close to the only thing in town. For instance, I believe that there have
been legal rulings that pharmacists cannot refuse to sell birth control
because it is against theirpersonal religious convictions.
> P.S. I am not RC - in fact, I disagree with them on all manner of
> things.
> But I am on the side of liberty, and in this case it means
> supporting the Roman church...
That's fine with me Tim. Everyone should follow their convictions. More
power to the individual!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 9/7/2012 12:22 PM, Han wrote:
>
>> I guess I am not making myself clear. If catholics or their
>> institutions do not want to supply birth control, they don't have to.
>
> According to your next statement, the above is made very unclear. :)
>
>> The insurance
>> plan they "sell" to their employees have voluntarily decided to
>> supply birth control, without charge.
>
> ?? This sentence makes no sense, perhaps because it is grammatically
> suspect.
Indeed, incorrect grammar.
I am assuming that the catholic institutions offer their employees a
health insurance plan. At least they are supposed to with the ACA. The
quirky compromise (I admit it is a bit smelly) that has been offered is
working as follows: The (catholic) institution paying for the insurance
plan via their insurance company would pay for a plan that does NOT
include the offending birth control coverage to which that catholic
institution objects. Because the insurance companies are (have been)
convinced that it is cheaper to provide birth control to the customers
who want it than to risk having to cover unwanted pregnancies and
deliveries, have "graciously" decided to provide those birth control
services for free.
> Who is doing the deciding?
>
> Who is "they", and who pays for the insurance?
My improved phrasing shoudl now cover that.
>> That should be the end of the discussion.
>> The employees then can decide to follow catholic "doctrine" or not.
>
> Not if "they" (Catholics?) are indeed paying the premium for the
> insurance that provides free birth control, but just not availing
> themselves of it.
>
> That is arguably neither a choice, nor following doctrine. :)
I agree, the whole subject is worth a smiley. To me providing birth
control is just totally self-evident and good.
Still respecting other opinions ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> I guess I am not making myself clear. If catholics or their
>> institutions do not want to supply birth control, they don't have to.
>> The insurance plan they "sell" to their employees have voluntarily
>> decided to supply birth control, without charge. That should be the
>> end of the discussion. The employees then can decide to follow
>> catholic "doctrine" or not.
>
> Why should that be the end of the discussion? Come on Han - you are
> trying to be the dictator again here. That in no way should be the
> end of the discussion - whether you want to declare it or not. They
> do not "sell" that insurance to their employees. Look into it - they
> OFFER it. That is quite a different matter, regardless of the quotes
> you used to hide your known misrepresentation of that statement. It
> is not up to you to decide what they "should" do, based on your
> liberal thoughts. You need to recognize the difference between your
> own opinions and what everyone else should do, just because you have
> an opinion.
>
> Even at that - you just contradicted yourself. Your have now turned
> this from a topic of what the hospital offers to patients, to what
> they offer to employees, and then you even wrapped it further around a
> pole by saying that the employee can decide to follow Catholic
> doctrine or not. Han - I don't think you even know what you believe.
> I think you want to believe the most liberal interpretation possible,
> but in reality - you don't.
I apologize for having been confusing. Please see my answer to Karl ...
I hope that clarifies things at least somewhat.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 09/07/2012 12:22 PM, Han wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>>> They can believe as they want, Mike. But they want to prescribe
>>>> things to everyone they come into contact with, such as hospitals
>>>> and their patients, even if much of their funding comes from the
>>>> feds. No go.
>>>
>>> I can see their point Han. They operate by their beliefs - just
>>> like you or I do. Don't you see it as a bit wrong for you, or I, or
>>> a governement to dictate to them how they should operate - despite
>>> their beliefs? I do. If you don't like their beliefs, then don't
>>> go to their hospital.
>>
>> I guess I am not making myself clear. If catholics or their
>> institutions do not want to supply birth control, they don't have to.
>> The insurance plan they "sell" to their employees have voluntarily
>> decided to supply birth control, without charge. That should be the
>> end of the discussion. The employees then can decide to follow
>> catholic "doctrine" or not.
>>
>
> But that is NOT what happened here. The Worst Administration In 100
> Years decided to try and force an RC university to make birth control
> available as part of their insurance place. The school said, "No,
> this is against our beliefs", so the Obama buffoons tried to do a
> quick game of misdirection by saying, "No, no, no. YOU don't have to
> offer it, your INSURANCE company does." The RCs also objected to
> this.
>
> In short Obama and is pests decided to interfere with a private sector
> institution and then FORCE their insurance company to offer something
> the school objects to.
>
> The right way to do this is to tell the schoo, "Fine you don't have to
> offer anything of the sort. However, this will disqualify you from
> any sort of Federal aid, and your students will not be eligible for
> Federal funds either." Then each party can decide what is more
> important.
Would indeed have been a cleaner way, but wouldn't that have led to cries
of blackmail?
I just can't get my head around the refusal of the catholic church to
even permit birth control. I am not asking them to promote birth control
(though that would be great too!), but to just allow it.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
In article <[email protected]>, Lew
Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Doug Winterburn" wrote:
>
> > The US birth rate for those that sign their checks on the front is
> > down.
> >
> > The US birth rate for those that sign their checks on the back is
> > up.
>
> ---------------------------
> More racist rubbish.
>
> Lew
I didn't realize welfare recipients were a race, Lew. When did that
happen?
--
Woodworking and more at <http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 22:18:56 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I've seen what the dictionary says in regard to racism and race and I
>choose to add my own interpretations to what the dictionary says.
>Racism is what is in a persons heart when they're spouting their
>opinion about other groups of people, not necessarily all of the same
>'race'.
No, that is just your opinion. Why do you think "race" is part of the
word racism?
>
>"Race" as you've repeated several times. can be defined and applied in
>many different ways. As far as I'm concerned, the irrational hatred of
>any particular group of people is a similar form of racism and that
>frequently has nothing do with their heritage.
No, it is defined in one particular way. One that most of us
understand.
>
>If you want to tell me that I'm just railing against hatred in
>general, then fine, that's your prerogative. Whatever it is, I don't
>like it and I'll speak out against it whenever and wherever I feel
>like it.
OK, but if you use the proper terms, you get your message across much
better. If you use the wrong terms, you are not understood, errors
can happen, bad things can take place. There is a reason we have
definitions, often very specific. Just as we have particular terms
for species of wood. If you called every wood oak in specifications,
you'd probably be disappointed when you expected something different.
Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:04:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> The exact definition of racism is controversial both because there
>>> is little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept
>>> "race", and because there is also little agreement about what does
>>> and doesn't constitute discrimination.
>>
>> Well Dave, I have never seen, nor heard any discussions about race
>> include the definitions you have proposed here.
>
> The problem is that I didn't propose the top paragraph above, it was
> quoted word for word from an online dictionary. Everybody keeps
> telling me to go look up the word 'racist' in a dictionary, but it so
> happens that more than one of them use wording similar to what's
> above.
>
> How do you explain that Mike?
Is that the excerpt from Wikipedia? If so, I had seen it however the
article does not use the statement that there is little scholarly agreement
in the same way you do in your assertions. I have not read every reference
to the word "racist" that google returned, but the ones that I had read did
not include groups defined by something other than ethnicity or race.
Specifically, they did not include groups such as plumbers, or even groups
such as financially underpriviledged. They all used the term in reference
to race and only highlighted that the term race is not fully agreed to in
terms of its granularity. So - how many definitions did you find that
included groups like plumbers?
That's how I explain that Dave.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:04:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> The exact definition of racism is controversial both because there is
>> little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race",
>> and because there is also little agreement about what does and doesn't
>> constitute discrimination.
>
>Well Dave, I have never seen, nor heard any discussions about race include
>the definitions you have proposed here.
The problem is that I didn't propose the top paragraph above, it was
quoted word for word from an online dictionary. Everybody keeps
telling me to go look up the word 'racist' in a dictionary, but it so
happens that more than one of them use wording similar to what's
above.
How do you explain that Mike?
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 01:26:53 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>The exact definition of racism is controversial both because there is
>little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race",
>and because there is also little agreement about what does and doesn't
>constitute discrimination.
>===================================================================
>Getting thicker all the time.
Is that ALL you've got? Hell, guess you're just too damned dumb to
create any type of rational response.
In article <[email protected]>, CW
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
> news:090920121205071952%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Lew
> Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Doug Winterburn" wrote:
> >
> > > The US birth rate for those that sign their checks on the front is
> > > down.
> > >
> > > The US birth rate for those that sign their checks on the back is
> > > up.
> >
> > ---------------------------
> > More racist rubbish.
> >
> > Lew
>
> I didn't realize welfare recipients were a race, Lew. When did that
> happen?
>
> ==============================================================================
> =
> The term "racist" has become a universal insult. I'm hearing it a lot from
> people that don't even know what it means.
Me too. The word is now effectively meaningless, unless used by the
liberal left where it means "I can't answer your arguments point for
point, because logic is even harder than math."
--
Woodworking and more at <http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:14:14 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> terms of its granularity. So - how many definitions did you find
>> that included groups like plumbers?
>
> So what, now you're being fictitious? You don't do it very well. You
> know damned well I threw plumber in there just as an example of
> another group of people.
No - I'm really not being fictitious. I only stuck with that because it's
what you threw in. Trying to explain that the term by its very definition
only relates to "race" related matters.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 9/11/2012 8:41 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 02:32:31 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> What people you want to include in a particular race is open to
>> discussion. For me, blacks, whites, low wage earners, the indigent,
>> plumbers, garbage collectors, whatever group you want to categorize,
>> all of them under certain conditions can fit into the definition of a
>> "Race".
>>
> Not in my opinion.
>
>
>> If there's enough of a certain group and if they live in a certain
>> way, then in very short order, they're going to be called a race. Tell
>> that's wrong Ed and please explain why.
> You honestly can think of an occupation as a race? Low income as a
> race?
>
> Races have some sort of DNA connection. Plumbers can be black, white,
> Jewish, rich, poor but they are plumbers, not a race. Just because
> you consider it something does not mean that it is. Sorry, but you
> can't convince me of it.
Society calls the group of people who are convicted for committing
crimes convicts. According to Dave's definition, if you put those
convicts in prison but don't imprison the innocent, you have committed a
racist act.
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 02:32:31 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>What people you want to include in a particular race is open to
>discussion. For me, blacks, whites, low wage earners, the indigent,
>plumbers, garbage collectors, whatever group you want to categorize,
>all of them under certain conditions can fit into the definition of a
>"Race".
>
Not in my opinion.
>If there's enough of a certain group and if they live in a certain
>way, then in very short order, they're going to be called a race. Tell
>that's wrong Ed and please explain why.
You honestly can think of an occupation as a race? Low income as a
race?
Races have some sort of DNA connection. Plumbers can be black, white,
Jewish, rich, poor but they are plumbers, not a race. Just because
you consider it something does not mean that it is. Sorry, but you
can't convince me of it.
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:14:14 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>terms of its granularity. So - how many definitions did you find that
>included groups like plumbers?
So what, now you're being fictitious? You don't do it very well. You
know damned well I threw plumber in there just as an example of
another group of people.
In article <[email protected]>, Lew
Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave Balderstone" wrote:
>
> > I didn't realize welfare recipients were a race, Lew. When did that
> > happen?
> -----------------------------
> Your failure to comprehend is not my concern.
That's FUNNY! I hereby dub you "Humpty-Dumpty".
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it
means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.'
On 09/08/2012 05:32 PM, Han wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 9/8/2012 2:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:12:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:48:46 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>>>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>>>>>
>>>>> A right? Paid for by others?
>>>>>
>>>>> What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But there is some economic sense to it.
>>>> As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for birth control for
>>>> irresponsible welfare recipients, nor do I want to pay for their
>>>> kids. What is the best way to handle this?
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather pay a few bucks a month for some form of birth control
>>>> rather than welfare for 18+ years for an unwanted child.
>>>>
>>>> Pay one time for a vasectomy or monthly for a pride of babies
>>>> scattered around town?
>>>
>>> A few -years- of birth control are AbsoFREAKIN'lutely worth it!
>>> Get generics, they're much cheaper.
>>
>> Most people that have kids that we pay for are baby factories. We
>> will pay for the birth control until they decide to hop on board the
>> hand out program "x" per child.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Free needles and free condoms are, without a doubt, an extremely
>>> cheap cost-saving step for the gov't to take. Avoiding hundreds or
>>> thousands of unwanted pregnancies and AIDS cases is A Good Thing(tm)!
>>
>>
>> If only the percent of those using government hand out birth control
>> were a great number. Unfortunately those being paid by the government
>> to have children by far out number those not wanting kids, which I
>> would probably say the ratio is 99 for wanting the government to pay
>> for kids, to 1 wanting the government to pay for not having kids.
>
> Despite very generous fiscal incentives in many European countries, the
> birth rate there is falling to the extent immigration is needed to keep
> the population up. If I have to believe you, Leon, (some) Americans must
> be different <grin>.
>
The US birth rate for those that sign their checks on the front is down.
The US birth rate for those that sign their checks on the back is up.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:36:53 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 09/10/2012 08:17 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 05:55:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I think you need to clarify. If I make a derogatory comment about
>>>> plumbers, according to your definition I'd be racist. If I make a
>>>> librarian joke, I'd be racist.
>>>
>>> Ok, you're asking me to be more specific. How about prejudging a group
>>> of people? Labeling them with ill intent? All these things are the
>>> basis of prejudice. Does that qualify someone for being racist?
>>
>> No - it does not Dave. Racist is a very specific word with a very specific
>> meaning. To apply that outside of its definition is dangerous, and
>> certainly dilutes the meaning of the term.
>>
>
>Exactly, just like the suffix "phobia" or "phobic". Now anyone
>who disagrees with something is <something>phobic. Do you oppose
>people sneaking into the country without proper ID? You're
>not properly insisting on rule-of-law but "xenophobic". Does
>your minister oppose homosexuality on religious grounds? He's
>not expressing a moral point of view, he's "homophobic". And
>so forth and so on. To have a "phobia" is to fear something.
>It does not mean to oppose something.
More specifically, a "phobia" is an *irrational* fear of something.
>The best way to reduce a culture to slag is
>to pollute the language ....
That's the whole point of political correctness.
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:43:37 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
>A clear example of librarianphobia ... so sad...
So says one of the biggest racists here. You're the one who called me
a thief because I was receiving publicly paid for health care in the
Canadian health care system.
You'll deny it and say that you were referring to the system, but then
you'd be a liar. I remember EXACTLY what you said to me.
Danliuk, your only reason for being here is to aggravate every non
woodworking topic and complain about every facet of your government,
your health system, and all the people who aren't well off
financially.
In all the years you've infested this NG, only once have you asked a
woodworking question which had very little reply since it was obvious
as hell that you don't know what a piece of sawdust even looks like.
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:38:05 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Won't help. He is terminally thick. He has redefined it.
I have NOT redefined it. What constitutes a race is and always has
been open to discussion.
The exact definition of racism is controversial both because there is
little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race",
and because there is also little agreement about what does and doesn't
constitute discrimination.
On 9/11/2012 12:38 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:38:05 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Won't help. He is terminally thick. He has redefined it.
> I have NOT redefined it. What constitutes a race is and always has
> been open to discussion.
>
> The exact definition of racism is controversial both because there is
> little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race",
> and because there is also little agreement about what does and doesn't
> constitute discrimination.
>
But not totally open-ended discussion like you suggest. There is total
"scholarly agreement" that the meaning of "race" is based on genetics.
It is an inherited biological condition, not an environmental or
sociological one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
For example, it may be reasonably debatable whether "white" or
"caucasian" is a single race or is a group of races that include
Scandinavian, Aryan, Gaulic, etc. It may be debatable whether the
Chinese and Japanese are the same race or different races. There is
total "scholarly agreement" that dark skinned people whose ancestors
originated from the continent of Africa, people whose ancestors
originated in eastern Asia, people whose ancestors originated in
northern Europe, and Native Americans, are not the same race. THAT is
what the above qualification to the definition of racism involves. It
refers to how narrowly one breaks down the genetic background of a
population. It is not an open ended inquiry into non-biological
environmental or sociological factors.
There is also "scholarly agreement" that one cannot change his or her
race by modifying one's sociological status or other environmental
conditions. Thus, wealthy people and indigent people are not two
different races. Educated people and illiterate people are not
different races. Republicans and Democrats are not different races.
Union members and non-union members are not different races.
Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:38:05 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Won't help. He is terminally thick. He has redefined it.
>
> I have NOT redefined it. What constitutes a race is and always has
> been open to discussion.
>
> The exact definition of racism is controversial both because there is
> little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race",
> and because there is also little agreement about what does and doesn't
> constitute discrimination.
Well Dave, I have never seen, nor heard any discussions about race include
the definitions you have proposed here. Have never heard those discussions
include "groups of any sort". I haven't even seen a great deal of
discussion about what constitutes a race. Seems that has generally been a
fairly well agreed to term.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:33:18 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Key word is race, race, race, race, race, race, race, race, race. Get it?
>You seem to be trying your best to make Canadians look stupid. I know better
>than that but do you?
I've seen what the dictionary says in regard to racism and race and I
choose to add my own interpretations to what the dictionary says.
Racism is what is in a persons heart when they're spouting their
opinion about other groups of people, not necessarily all of the same
'race'.
"Race" as you've repeated several times. can be defined and applied in
many different ways. As far as I'm concerned, the irrational hatred of
any particular group of people is a similar form of racism and that
frequently has nothing do with their heritage.
If you want to tell me that I'm just railing against hatred in
general, then fine, that's your prerogative. Whatever it is, I don't
like it and I'll speak out against it whenever and wherever I feel
like it.
Just Wondering wrote:
> Republicans and Democrats are not different races.
You were doing OK until you hit that one...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Dave" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:38:05 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Won't help. He is terminally thick. He has redefined it.
I have NOT redefined it. What constitutes a race is and always has
been open to discussion.
The exact definition of racism is controversial both because there is
little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race",
and because there is also little agreement about what does and doesn't
constitute discrimination.
===================================================================
Getting thicker all the time.
On 09/08/2012 06:36 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Doug Winterburn" wrote:
>
>> The US birth rate for those that sign their checks on the front is
>> down.
>>
>> The US birth rate for those that sign their checks on the back is
>> up.
>
> ---------------------------
> More racist rubbish.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
More liberal horseshit.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:12:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:48:46 -0600, Dave Balderstone
><dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Han
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>>
>>A right? Paid for by others?
>>
>>What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
>
>
>But there is some economic sense to it.
>As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for birth control for irresponsible
>welfare recipients, nor do I want to pay for their kids. What is the
>best way to handle this?
>
>I'd rather pay a few bucks a month for some form of birth control
>rather than welfare for 18+ years for an unwanted child.
>
>Pay one time for a vasectomy or monthly for a pride of babies
>scattered around town?
A few -years- of birth control are AbsoFREAKIN'lutely worth it!
Get generics, they're much cheaper.
Free needles and free condoms are, without a doubt, an extremely cheap
cost-saving step for the gov't to take. Avoiding hundreds or
thousands of unwanted pregnancies and AIDS cases is A Good Thing(tm)!
--
Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before
which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air.
-- John Quincy Adams
In article <[email protected]>, Ed Pawlowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 04:29:39 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 20:20:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> >>Me too. The word is now effectively meaningless, unless used by the
> >>liberal left where it means "I can't answer your arguments point for
> >>point, because logic is even harder than math."
> >
> >Bullshit. A racist comment is something that is as simple as labeling
> >one particular group of people with a derogatory description. ~
> >Something that you appear to like doing without putting much thought
> >or consideration into it first.
>
> I think you need to clarify. If I make a derogatory comment about
> plumbers, according to your definition I'd be racist. If I make a
> librarian joke, I'd be racist.
Not only racist, but Librarianophobic! I happen to know several
moderate librarians, so you are obviously an evil, racist, bigot and
must be shouted down in all forums at every opportunity!
Librarians are the 99%!
--
"It's not bragging if you can back it up." -- Muhammad Ali
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Ed Pawlowski
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 04:29:39 -0400, Dave <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 20:20:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>>>> Me too. The word is now effectively meaningless, unless used by the
>>>> liberal left where it means "I can't answer your arguments point
>>>> for point, because logic is even harder than math."
>>>
>>> Bullshit. A racist comment is something that is as simple as
>>> labeling one particular group of people with a derogatory
>>> description. ~ Something that you appear to like doing without
>>> putting much thought or consideration into it first.
>>
>> I think you need to clarify. If I make a derogatory comment about
>> plumbers, according to your definition I'd be racist. If I make a
>> librarian joke, I'd be racist.
>
> Not only racist, but Librarianophobic! I happen to know several
> moderate librarians, so you are obviously an evil, racist, bigot and
> must be shouted down in all forums at every opportunity!
>
Well... since you put it that way...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 09/10/2012 09:26 AM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Ed Pawlowski
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 04:29:39 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 20:20:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>>>> Me too. The word is now effectively meaningless, unless used by the
>>>> liberal left where it means "I can't answer your arguments point for
>>>> point, because logic is even harder than math."
>>>
>>> Bullshit. A racist comment is something that is as simple as labeling
>>> one particular group of people with a derogatory description. ~
>>> Something that you appear to like doing without putting much thought
>>> or consideration into it first.
>>
>> I think you need to clarify. If I make a derogatory comment about
>> plumbers, according to your definition I'd be racist. If I make a
>> librarian joke, I'd be racist.
>
> Not only racist, but Librarianophobic! I happen to know several
> moderate librarians, so you are obviously an evil, racist, bigot and
> must be shouted down in all forums at every opportunity!
>
> Librarians are the 99%!
>
A clear example of librarianphobia ... so sad...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 04:29:39 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 20:20:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>>Me too. The word is now effectively meaningless, unless used by the
>>liberal left where it means "I can't answer your arguments point for
>>point, because logic is even harder than math."
>
>Bullshit. A racist comment is something that is as simple as labeling
>one particular group of people with a derogatory description. ~
>Something that you appear to like doing without putting much thought
>or consideration into it first.
I think you need to clarify. If I make a derogatory comment about
plumbers, according to your definition I'd be racist. If I make a
librarian joke, I'd be racist.
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 00:45:37 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>What drew them together (occupation, physical characteristics,
>specific values) doesn't matter. It's what they became after they
>formed their own unique group. How else were current races created?
>
Plumber's Union? AFL-CIO?
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 04:29:39 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 20:20:30 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>>Me too. The word is now effectively meaningless, unless used by the
>>liberal left where it means "I can't answer your arguments point for
>>point, because logic is even harder than math."
>
>Bullshit. A racist comment is something that is as simple as labeling
>one particular group of people with a derogatory description. ~
>Something that you appear to like doing without putting much thought
>or consideration into it first.
Thanks for proving Dave Balderstone's point.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:090920121205071952%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
In article <[email protected]>, Lew
Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Doug Winterburn" wrote:
>
> > The US birth rate for those that sign their checks on the front is
> > down.
> >
> > The US birth rate for those that sign their checks on the back is
> > up.
>
> ---------------------------
> More racist rubbish.
>
> Lew
I didn't realize welfare recipients were a race, Lew. When did that
happen?
===============================================================================
The term "racist" has become a universal insult. I'm hearing it a lot from
people that don't even know what it means.
--
Woodworking and more at <http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
Dave wrote:
>
> What people you want to include in a particular race is open to
> discussion. For me, blacks, whites, low wage earners, the indigent,
> plumbers, garbage collectors, whatever group you want to categorize,
> all of them under certain conditions can fit into the definition of a
> "Race".
>
> If there's enough of a certain group and if they live in a certain
> way, then in very short order, they're going to be called a race. Tell
> that's wrong Ed and please explain why.
Dave - it's looks like you are starting your own campaign for "The New
Vocabulary". Can't say as I have ever heard anyone take this position
before. Not expecting it to take hold in a very large way...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:22:58 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>Whites are, in many cases, a primary victim of true racism.
>Particularly from those with darker skin, including blacks and natives.
>
>And of course, if we defend ourselves against such racism, well, we're
>labelled racist.
Except when people like you use the act of protecting yourself as an
excuse to use your own secular form of attack. ~ Not racism, but not
too far removed from it either.
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 23:51:57 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>OK, but if you use the proper terms, you get your message across much
>better. If you use the wrong terms, you are not understood, errors
>can happen, bad things can take place. There is a reason we have
>definitions, often very specific. Just as we have particular terms
>for species of wood. If you called every wood oak in specifications,
>you'd probably be disappointed when you expected something different.
"The exact definition of racism is controversial both because there is
little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race",
and because there is also little agreement about what does and doesn't
constitute discrimination."
That's an exact quote from one dictionary and directly supports what
I've been saying all along that "race" can be and often is defined
differently.
What people you want to include in a particular race is open to
discussion. For me, blacks, whites, low wage earners, the indigent,
plumbers, garbage collectors, whatever group you want to categorize,
all of them under certain conditions can fit into the definition of a
"Race".
If there's enough of a certain group and if they live in a certain
way, then in very short order, they're going to be called a race. Tell
that's wrong Ed and please explain why.
"Dave" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 23:51:57 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>OK, but if you use the proper terms, you get your message across much
>better. If you use the wrong terms, you are not understood, errors
>can happen, bad things can take place. There is a reason we have
>definitions, often very specific. Just as we have particular terms
>for species of wood. If you called every wood oak in specifications,
>you'd probably be disappointed when you expected something different.
"The exact definition of racism is controversial both because there is
little scholarly agreement about the meaning of the concept "race",
and because there is also little agreement about what does and doesn't
constitute discrimination."
That's an exact quote from one dictionary and directly supports what
I've been saying all along that "race" can be and often is defined
differently.
What people you want to include in a particular race is open to
discussion. For me, blacks, whites, low wage earners, the indigent,
plumbers, garbage collectors, whatever group you want to categorize,
all of them under certain conditions can fit into the definition of a
"Race".
If there's enough of a certain group and if they live in a certain
way, then in very short order, they're going to be called a race. Tell
that's wrong Ed and please explain why.
================================================================================
Are you related to Bill Clinton? What's your definition of "is"?
On 9/8/2012 2:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:12:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:48:46 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>>>
>>> A right? Paid for by others?
>>>
>>> What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
>>
>>
>> But there is some economic sense to it.
>> As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for birth control for irresponsible
>> welfare recipients, nor do I want to pay for their kids. What is the
>> best way to handle this?
>>
>> I'd rather pay a few bucks a month for some form of birth control
>> rather than welfare for 18+ years for an unwanted child.
>>
>> Pay one time for a vasectomy or monthly for a pride of babies
>> scattered around town?
>
> A few -years- of birth control are AbsoFREAKIN'lutely worth it!
> Get generics, they're much cheaper.
Most people that have kids that we pay for are baby factories. We will
pay for the birth control until they decide to hop on board the hand out
program "x" per child.
> Free needles and free condoms are, without a doubt, an extremely cheap
> cost-saving step for the gov't to take. Avoiding hundreds or
> thousands of unwanted pregnancies and AIDS cases is A Good Thing(tm)!
If only the percent of those using government hand out birth control
were a great number. Unfortunately those being paid by the government
to have children by far out number those not wanting kids, which I would
probably say the ratio is 99 for wanting the government to pay for kids,
to 1 wanting the government to pay for not having kids.
In article <[email protected]>, Just Wondering
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Affirmative action in the form of giving someone preferential treatment
> based on the color of one's skin, is racism.
And us over-50 white males experience ageism, sexism and racism daily.
--
Woodworking and more at <http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
In article <[email protected]>, Mike Marlow
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Just Wondering
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Affirmative action in the form of giving someone preferential
> >> treatment based on the color of one's skin, is racism.
> >
> > And us over-50 white males experience ageism, sexism and racism daily.
>
> No - we don't. We experience something else which is perhaps an arguable
> point, but what we do NOT experience is racism. Despite my interest in
> supprting my own cause - this just does not do so. Or... did I miss your
> point?
You didn't miss it, Mike. I just didn't make it well...
Whites are, in many cases, a primary victim of true racism.
Particularly from those with darker skin, including blacks and natives.
And of course, if we defend ourselves against such racism, well, we're
labelled racist.
--
Woodworking and more at <http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
In article <[email protected]>, CW
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
> news:100920121351305224%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>
> And us over-50 white males experience ageism, sexism and racism daily.
>
> ==============================================================================
> =
> Really? I've never had a problem.
I see it frequently, particularly coming from the Canadian native
community.
--
Woodworking and more at <http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
In article <[email protected]>, Just Wondering
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/10/2012 1:51 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Just Wondering
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Affirmative action in the form of giving someone preferential treatment
> >> based on the color of one's skin, is racism.
> > And us over-50 white males experience ageism, sexism and racism daily.
> >
> You speak only for yourself. I am an over-50 white male and I don't
> experience those things.
Fair enough.
--
"It's better to have something to remember than nothing to regret... " - Frank
Zappa
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000108030206030103050500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 9/10/2012 11:57 AM, CW wrote:
>
>
> "Dave" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 05:55:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think you need to clarify. If I make a derogatory comment about
>> plumbers, according to your definition I'd be racist. If I make a
>> librarian joke, I'd be racist.
>
> Ok, you're asking me to be more specific. How about prejudging a group
> of people? Labeling them with ill intent? All these things are the
> basis of prejudice. Does that qualify someone for being racist?
> ====================================================================
> No.
Prejudging or discriminating either against or in favor of a person or
group of people solely because of his/her/their race is racism.
Prejudging or discrimination based on ANY other criterion is not racism.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and
capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority
of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racism:
*1. * The belief that race accounts for differences in human character
or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
*2. * Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
1. (Sociology) the belief that races have distinctive cultural
characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows
some races with an intrinsic superiority over others
2. (Sociology) abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of
another race on the basis of such a belief
Collins English Dictionary -- Complete and Unabridged
We should no more discriminate in favor of someone because of race than
we should discriminate against a person because of race.
Affirmative action in the form of giving someone preferential treatment
based on the color of one's skin, is racism.
--------------000108030206030103050500
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/10/2012 11:57 AM, CW wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:[email protected]"
type="cite">
<br>
<br>
"Dave" wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:[email protected]">news:[email protected]</a>...
<br>
<br>
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 05:55:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]"><[email protected]></a> wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I think you need to clarify. If I make a
derogatory comment about
<br>
plumbers, according to your definition I'd be racist. If I make
a
<br>
librarian joke, I'd be racist.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ok, you're asking me to be more specific. How about prejudging a
group
<br>
of people? Labeling them with ill intent? All these things are the
<br>
basis of prejudice. Does that qualify someone for being racist?
<br>
====================================================================
<br>
No. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Prejudging or discriminating either against or in favor of a person
or group of people solely because of his/her/their race is racism.
Prejudging or discrimination based on ANY other criterion is not
racism. <br>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism</a><br>
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and
capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent
superiority of a particular race<br>
2: racial prejudice or discrimination <br>
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racism">http://www.thefreedictionary.com/racism</a>:<br>
<br>
<div class="ds-list"><b>1. </b> The belief that race accounts for
differences in human character or ability and that a particular
race is superior to others.</div>
<div class="ds-list"><b>2. </b> Discrimination or prejudice based
on race.<br>
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition<br>
<br>
1. (Sociology) the belief that races have distinctive cultural
characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this
endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others<br>
2. (Sociology) abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of
another race on the basis of such a belief<br>
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged<br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
We should no more discriminate in favor of someone because of race
than we should discriminate against a person because of race. <br>
Affirmative action in the form of giving someone preferential
treatment based on the color of one's skin, is racism.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------000108030206030103050500--
On 9/10/2012 1:51 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Just Wondering
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Affirmative action in the form of giving someone preferential treatment
>> based on the color of one's skin, is racism.
> And us over-50 white males experience ageism, sexism and racism daily.
>
You speak only for yourself. I am an over-50 white male and I don't
experience those things.
On 9/10/2012 5:12 PM, CW wrote:
>
>
> "Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
> news:100920121622580518%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Mike Marlow
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>> > In article <[email protected]>, Just Wondering
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Affirmative action in the form of giving someone preferential
>> >> treatment based on the color of one's skin, is racism.
>> >
>> > And us over-50 white males experience ageism, sexism and racism daily.
>>
>> No - we don't. We experience something else which is perhaps an
>> arguable
>> point, but what we do NOT experience is racism. Despite my interest in
>> supprting my own cause - this just does not do so. Or... did I miss
>> your
>> point?
>
> You didn't miss it, Mike. I just didn't make it well...
>
> Whites are, in many cases, a primary victim of true racism.
> Particularly from those with darker skin, including blacks and natives.
>
> And of course, if we defend ourselves against such racism, well, we're
> labelled racist.
> ====================================================================
> And those trying hard to prove that they are not racist. Been that way
> for a long time. In Army basic training, in 82, if you were white, you
> could not be a squad leader.
Dunno about 1982. But in basic at Fort Dix in 1972, there was no racism
that I could see anywhere. No one was black, white, yellow or red. We
were all army green.
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Just Wondering
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Affirmative action in the form of giving someone preferential
>> treatment based on the color of one's skin, is racism.
>
> And us over-50 white males experience ageism, sexism and racism daily.
No - we don't. We experience something else which is perhaps an arguable
point, but what we do NOT experience is racism. Despite my interest in
supprting my own cause - this just does not do so. Or... did I miss your
point?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 05:55:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>I think you need to clarify. If I make a derogatory comment about
>plumbers, according to your definition I'd be racist. If I make a
>librarian joke, I'd be racist.
Ok, you're asking me to be more specific. How about prejudging a group
of people? Labeling them with ill intent? All these things are the
basis of prejudice. Does that qualify someone for being racist?
On 09/10/2012 08:17 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 05:55:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I think you need to clarify. If I make a derogatory comment about
>>> plumbers, according to your definition I'd be racist. If I make a
>>> librarian joke, I'd be racist.
>>
>> Ok, you're asking me to be more specific. How about prejudging a group
>> of people? Labeling them with ill intent? All these things are the
>> basis of prejudice. Does that qualify someone for being racist?
>
> No - it does not Dave. Racist is a very specific word with a very specific
> meaning. To apply that outside of its definition is dangerous, and
> certainly dilutes the meaning of the term.
>
Exactly, just like the suffix "phobia" or "phobic". Now anyone
who disagrees with something is <something>phobic. Do you oppose
people sneaking into the country without proper ID? You're
not properly insisting on rule-of-law but "xenophobic". Does
your minister oppose homosexuality on religious grounds? He's
not expressing a moral point of view, he's "homophobic". And
so forth and so on. To have a "phobia" is to fear something.
It does not mean to oppose something.
The best way to reduce a culture to slag is
to pollute the language ....
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
news:100920121622580518%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
In article <[email protected]>, Mike Marlow
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Just Wondering
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Affirmative action in the form of giving someone preferential
> >> treatment based on the color of one's skin, is racism.
> >
> > And us over-50 white males experience ageism, sexism and racism daily.
>
> No - we don't. We experience something else which is perhaps an arguable
> point, but what we do NOT experience is racism. Despite my interest in
> supprting my own cause - this just does not do so. Or... did I miss your
> point?
You didn't miss it, Mike. I just didn't make it well...
Whites are, in many cases, a primary victim of true racism.
Particularly from those with darker skin, including blacks and natives.
And of course, if we defend ourselves against such racism, well, we're
labelled racist.
====================================================================
And those trying hard to prove that they are not racist. Been that way for a
long time. In Army basic training, in 82, if you were white, you could not
be a squad leader. Favorites back then had changed from Black to Porto
Rican. They were not even required to speak English and they could do no
wrong. I wonder if they ever figured out that racism is racism, no mater
what race is the target. Then we have the people that feel that they should
apologize for being white...
Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 05:55:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think you need to clarify. If I make a derogatory comment about
>> plumbers, according to your definition I'd be racist. If I make a
>> librarian joke, I'd be racist.
>
> Ok, you're asking me to be more specific. How about prejudging a group
> of people? Labeling them with ill intent? All these things are the
> basis of prejudice. Does that qualify someone for being racist?
No - it does not Dave. Racist is a very specific word with a very specific
meaning. To apply that outside of its definition is dangerous, and
certainly dilutes the meaning of the term.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 9/10/2012 5:12 PM, CW wrote:
>
>
> "Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
> news:100920121622580518%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca...
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Mike Marlow
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>> > In article <[email protected]>, Just Wondering
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Affirmative action in the form of giving someone preferential
>> >> treatment based on the color of one's skin, is racism.
>> >
>> > And us over-50 white males experience ageism, sexism and racism daily.
>>
>> No - we don't. We experience something else which is perhaps an arguable
>> point, but what we do NOT experience is racism. Despite my interest in
>> supprting my own cause - this just does not do so. Or... did I miss your
>> point?
>
> You didn't miss it, Mike. I just didn't make it well...
>
> Whites are, in many cases, a primary victim of true racism.
> Particularly from those with darker skin, including blacks and natives.
>
> And of course, if we defend ourselves against such racism, well, we're
> labelled racist.
> ====================================================================
> And those trying hard to prove that they are not racist. Been that way for
> a long time. In Army basic training, in 82, if you were white, you could
> not be a squad leader.
Dunno about 1982. But in basic at Fort Dix in 1972, there was no racism
that I could see anywhere. No one was black, white, yellow or red. We
were all army green.
=======================================================================
Apparently, thinks went to shit in those ten years. This was Fort Knox.
"Dave" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 05:55:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>I think you need to clarify. If I make a derogatory comment about
>plumbers, according to your definition I'd be racist. If I make a
>librarian joke, I'd be racist.
Ok, you're asking me to be more specific. How about prejudging a group
of people? Labeling them with ill intent? All these things are the
basis of prejudice. Does that qualify someone for being racist?
====================================================================
No.
On 09/10/2012 02:51 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Just Wondering
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Affirmative action in the form of giving someone preferential treatment
>> based on the color of one's skin, is racism.
>
> And us over-50 white males experience ageism, sexism and racism daily.
>
O-pressed, Re-pressed, Com-pressed, and D-pressed?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 9/8/2012 2:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:12:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:48:46 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>>>>
>>>> A right? Paid for by others?
>>>>
>>>> What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
>>>
>>>
>>> But there is some economic sense to it.
>>> As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for birth control for
>>> irresponsible welfare recipients, nor do I want to pay for their
>>> kids. What is the best way to handle this?
>>>
>>> I'd rather pay a few bucks a month for some form of birth control
>>> rather than welfare for 18+ years for an unwanted child.
>>>
>>> Pay one time for a vasectomy or monthly for a pride of babies
>>> scattered around town?
>>
>> A few -years- of birth control are AbsoFREAKIN'lutely worth it!
>> Get generics, they're much cheaper.
>
> Most people that have kids that we pay for are baby factories. We
> will pay for the birth control until they decide to hop on board the
> hand out program "x" per child.
>
>
>
>> Free needles and free condoms are, without a doubt, an extremely
>> cheap cost-saving step for the gov't to take. Avoiding hundreds or
>> thousands of unwanted pregnancies and AIDS cases is A Good Thing(tm)!
>
>
> If only the percent of those using government hand out birth control
> were a great number. Unfortunately those being paid by the government
> to have children by far out number those not wanting kids, which I
> would probably say the ratio is 99 for wanting the government to pay
> for kids, to 1 wanting the government to pay for not having kids.
Despite very generous fiscal incentives in many European countries, the
birth rate there is falling to the extent immigration is needed to keep
the population up. If I have to believe you, Leon, (some) Americans must
be different <grin>.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:17:34 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> No - it does not Dave. Racist is a very specific word with a very
>> specific meaning. To apply that outside of its definition is
>> dangerous, and certainly dilutes the meaning of the term.
>
> You know, it's real easy to sit there on your fat ass and just say
> "No, it does not" without offering up your explanation as to what you
> think a racist really is.
>
I can't really do that Dave, because I don't have a fat ass... Like I
said - the word "racist" has a definition. Just look it up.
> I could say that all Mike Marlows should be shot and pissed on for no
> other reason than just because they're different from the way that I
> am. Would that qualify as a racist remark?
No it wouldn't. That sort of statement might make you intolerant, but it
does not make you a racist.
>
> As far as I'm concerned being racist is something defined by the way a
> person treats someone else.
And that is a problem today. People feel too comfortable using inflamatory
language and the likes in order to bolster their case or their claim about
something important to them. Maybe that simply reflects a lack of a
suitable vocabulary, but what it does not do, is to legitimize the incorrect
use of a term. In fact - that form of argument only serves to defeat the
speaker's position, since the claim being made is invalid.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Dave" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:17:34 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>No - it does not Dave. Racist is a very specific word with a very specific
>meaning. To apply that outside of its definition is dangerous, and
>certainly dilutes the meaning of the term.
You know, it's real easy to sit there on your fat ass and just say
"No, it does not" without offering up your explanation as to what you
think a racist really is.
I could say that all Mike Marlows should be shot and pissed on for no
other reason than just because they're different from the way that I
am. Would that qualify as a racist remark?
As far as I'm concerned being racist is something defined by the way a.
person treats someone else. And considering all the people here who
whine about the indigent, the people on welfare, the people because of
poor health are forced to live on federal handouts, this NG is rife
with a hell of a lot of your assholes!
===============================================================================
Damn Dave, I guess you can't use a dictionary. Guess I'll have to do it for
you. This from the Merriam Webster dictionary.
racist: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and
capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a
particular race.
Key word is race, race, race, race, race, race, race, race, race. Get it?
You seem to be trying your best to make Canadians look stupid. I know better
than that but do you?
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:08:33 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 05:55:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I think you need to clarify. If I make a derogatory comment about
>>plumbers, according to your definition I'd be racist. If I make a
>>librarian joke, I'd be racist.
>
>Ok, you're asking me to be more specific. How about prejudging a group
>of people? Labeling them with ill intent? All these things are the
>basis of prejudice. Does that qualify someone for being racist?
No, not if race is not involved. Call them hoodlums, bums, gangsters,
layabouts, but unless race is involved, it is not racist.
Your definition allows us to call all bad fruit rotting apples. Sorry,
it only applies to apples, not oranges and bananas.
Look up where the term "racist" comes from. Hint: RACE is involved.
=====================================================================
Won't help. He is terminally thick. He has redefined it.
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:08:33 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 05:55:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I think you need to clarify. If I make a derogatory comment about
>>plumbers, according to your definition I'd be racist. If I make a
>>librarian joke, I'd be racist.
>
>Ok, you're asking me to be more specific. How about prejudging a group
>of people? Labeling them with ill intent? All these things are the
>basis of prejudice. Does that qualify someone for being racist?
No, not if race is not involved. Call them hoodlums, bums, gangsters,
layabouts, but unless race is involved, it is not racist.
Your definition allows us to call all bad fruit rotting apples. Sorry,
it only applies to apples, not oranges and bananas.
Look up where the term "racist" comes from. Hint: RACE is involved.
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:08:33 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 05:55:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>I think you need to clarify. If I make a derogatory comment about
>>plumbers, according to your definition I'd be racist. If I make a
>>librarian joke, I'd be racist.
>
>Ok, you're asking me to be more specific. How about prejudging a group
>of people? Labeling them with ill intent? All these things are the
>basis of prejudice. Does that qualify someone for being racist?
No.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:17:34 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>No - it does not Dave. Racist is a very specific word with a very specific
>meaning. To apply that outside of its definition is dangerous, and
>certainly dilutes the meaning of the term.
You know, it's real easy to sit there on your fat ass and just say
"No, it does not" without offering up your explanation as to what you
think a racist really is.
I could say that all Mike Marlows should be shot and pissed on for no
other reason than just because they're different from the way that I
am. Would that qualify as a racist remark?
As far as I'm concerned being racist is something defined by the way a
person treats someone else. And considering all the people here who
whine about the indigent, the people on welfare, the people because of
poor health are forced to live on federal handouts, this NG is rife
with a hell of a lot of your assholes!
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 09/08/2012 05:32 PM, Han wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 9/8/2012 2:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:12:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:48:46 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>>>>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid
>>>>>>> for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A right? Paid for by others?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is some economic sense to it.
>>>>> As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for birth control for
>>>>> irresponsible welfare recipients, nor do I want to pay for their
>>>>> kids. What is the best way to handle this?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd rather pay a few bucks a month for some form of birth control
>>>>> rather than welfare for 18+ years for an unwanted child.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pay one time for a vasectomy or monthly for a pride of babies
>>>>> scattered around town?
>>>>
>>>> A few -years- of birth control are AbsoFREAKIN'lutely worth it!
>>>> Get generics, they're much cheaper.
>>>
>>> Most people that have kids that we pay for are baby factories. We
>>> will pay for the birth control until they decide to hop on board the
>>> hand out program "x" per child.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Free needles and free condoms are, without a doubt, an extremely
>>>> cheap cost-saving step for the gov't to take. Avoiding hundreds or
>>>> thousands of unwanted pregnancies and AIDS cases is A Good
>>>> Thing(tm)!
>>>
>>>
>>> If only the percent of those using government hand out birth control
>>> were a great number. Unfortunately those being paid by the
>>> government to have children by far out number those not wanting
>>> kids, which I would probably say the ratio is 99 for wanting the
>>> government to pay for kids, to 1 wanting the government to pay for
>>> not having kids.
>>
>> Despite very generous fiscal incentives in many European countries,
>> the birth rate there is falling to the extent immigration is needed
>> to keep the population up. If I have to believe you, Leon, (some)
>> Americans must be different <grin>.
>>
>
> The US birth rate for those that sign their checks on the front is
> down.
>
> The US birth rate for those that sign their checks on the back is up.
Good one, but perhaps inaccurate. Data show that the birthrate goes down
as wealth goes up. So there is your solution.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> "Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> They should respect the
> separation of church and state
>
> Where in the Constitution does it say anything about "separation of
> church and state"?
The words are in the First amendment in this format: "Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof".
According to Wikipedia:
<quote>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_Unite
d_States>
"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between
church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (in his 1802
letter to the Danbury Baptists) and others expressing an understanding of
the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise
Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The phrase has since been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the
United States.
</quote>
We can discuss some other time whether a generalized teaching in schools
of the philosophies underlying religion or religions would be useful.
IMO, with good teachers that does not have to end up in proselytizing,
nor in promoting or bashing any religion. As you know I am agnostic ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>
>> And this is where the conservative narrative falls apart. When you
>> take someone's money, you take the conditions that go with it. There
>> is no "extortion". The RC folks could decide what is more important:
>> Their religious principles or Federal money. You don't get to take
>> the piper's money and then scream about how bad the tune is ...
>
> I don't see it that way Tim. That money is for a specific purpose,
> and IMHO should not be used to leverage the wishes of the Feds.
> Admitedly, my contention probably plays a little more cleanly in the
> matter of the Feds holding back funds from States, than it does in
> this particular point, but the principle applies all the same. Now -
> if the Feds were to say that of the total amount of money they have to
> offer a hospital X% is earmarked for abortion services (or any other
> service for that matter), and the hospital opted not to offer that
> service, I would be fine with them not receiving the X%.
OK. I see your point, but IMO (BIG caveat) it is not valid. With the
ACA, the US has effectively stated that medical care is a right, not a
privilege, while insisting care should be paid for. That medical care
encompasses all kinds of care, including birth control. To exclude birth
control is not logical. This does not force the use of birth control
onto anyone, just like you're perfectly free to refuse dialysis or a
bypass.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>> I just can't get my head around the refusal of the catholic church to
>> even permit birth control. I am not asking them to promote birth
>> control (though that would be great too!), but to just allow it.
>
> Why Han? Can you not accept that they (others) have a different
> belief? Why should they conform to your wishes or your beliefs? That
> just does not sound like other things I've read from you.
Mike, no, I cannot accept that refusing to offer birth control is
permissible under a religious concept, since birth control is on a
philosophical level the same as dialysis. Science, or whatever you want
to call the current practice of medicine, has given us many possibilities
to influence life in positive ways, and to exclude birth control is not
only illogical, it is wrong. All these medical advances are now a right
to have available under ACA (paid for by the subscribers in some way, of
course). The catholic church does NOT prohibit dialysis, and it is at
least as "unnatural" as birth control, if not more. Therefore I cannot
accept the church's position even under religious concepts. Which brings
me back to the same position - if individuals want to forgo birth
control, that is fine by me, as long as there is no coercion of any kind
between the consenting individuals.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 16:36:12 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 9/8/2012 2:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:48:46 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>>>
>>> A right? Paid for by others?
>>>
>>> What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
>>
>>
>> But there is some economic sense to it.
>> As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for birth control for irresponsible
>> welfare recipients, nor do I want to pay for their kids. What is the
>> best way to handle this?
>>
>> I'd rather pay a few bucks a month for some form of birth control
>> rather than welfare for 18+ years for an unwanted child.
>>
>> Pay one time for a vasectomy or monthly for a pride of babies
>> scattered around town?
>>
>
>The truth to the matter though is that you will pay for birth control
>and later on pay for the child after the slip.
I still think voluntary sterilization for Welfare mothers (AND
fathers, when found) would be the hot ticket. You want the money, you
get the operation, suckah!
--
Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before
which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air.
-- John Quincy Adams
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 16:36:12 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 9/8/2012 2:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:48:46 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>>>
>>> A right? Paid for by others?
>>>
>>> What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
>>
>>
>> But there is some economic sense to it.
>> As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for birth control for irresponsible
>> welfare recipients, nor do I want to pay for their kids. What is the
>> best way to handle this?
>>
>> I'd rather pay a few bucks a month for some form of birth control
>> rather than welfare for 18+ years for an unwanted child.
>>
>> Pay one time for a vasectomy or monthly for a pride of babies
>> scattered around town?
>>
>
>The truth to the matter though is that you will pay for birth control
>and later on pay for the child after the slip.
Not with vas and tubal ligation, you don't.
--
Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before
which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air.
-- John Quincy Adams
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> OK. I see your point, but IMO (BIG caveat) it is not valid. With
>> the ACA, the US has effectively stated that medical care is a right,
>> not a privilege, while insisting care should be paid for. That
>> medical care encompasses all kinds of care, including birth control.
>> To exclude birth control is not logical. This does not force the use
>> of birth control onto anyone, just like you're perfectly free to
>> refuse dialysis or a bypass.
>
> So - for the sake of the conversation... what would be wrong with a
> facility not offering everything? That really would not be so
> different from the way things already are. If a facility does not
> offer what you want, you have to go to a different facility. That
> leaves room for choices based upon beliefs, based upon capability,
> etc. (choices on the part of the facility). My thoughts are that if
> the Fed reach to the level of mandating everything based upon their
> funding, that we reach a point of the Feds dictating - and that is
> philosophically bad in my mind.
That would be ideal, and it should work in New York City, where there
easily could be choice. Perhaps also in Portland, OR. But would it work
in Amarillo, Tx and smaller cities in the middle of nowhere? And this
would leave out the whole of whether or not birth control (or whatever)
is a right. Birth control is not as demanding on facilities and
expertise as heart valve replacement, while being perhaps more
economically useful.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Please sccroll down, too lazy to snip
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>> Mike, no, I cannot accept that refusing to offer birth control is
>> permissible under a religious concept, since birth control is on a
>> philosophical level the same as dialysis.
>
> FTR - I am not against birth control either. I know you have not
> suggested that I may be, but I just wanted to put that out there since
> I am taking a position which supports an organization that does not
> believe in it.
>
>> Science, or whatever you
>> want to call the current practice of medicine, has given us many
>> possibilities to influence life in positive ways, and to exclude
>> birth control is not only illogical, it is wrong.
>
> Well - I can see it as completely logical. There is quite a gap
> between life saving measures and preferences. Regardless of the
> beliefs on either side, it is pretty well acknowledged by both that
> birth control is not a life saving practice.
>
>> All these medical
>> advances are now a right to have available under ACA (paid for by the
>> subscribers in some way, of course). The catholic church does NOT
>> prohibit dialysis, and it is at least as "unnatural" as birth
>> control, if not more.
>
> Yes, but their point is not one of unnatural. The RC church does not
> hold against any form of medical treatment because it is unnatural.
> They hold specifically against birth control for entirely different
> reasons. Natural and unnatural have nothing to do with it.
I googled for "why is the catholic church against birth control" and this
was the first hit:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control
Seems to say "unnatural" is the reason for the prohibition of any form of
birth control, reasoning repeated over and over in different ways.
Please note that a very large majority of catholics do practice birth
control. Which makes official prohibition utterly hypocritical, or at
least the reason for unwanted anxieties about sinning (whatever that is).
>> Therefore I cannot accept the church's position even under religious
>> concepts.
>
> Which is why you and I make decisions to follow, or not to follow a
> particular religion, or no religion. I don't agree with their
> position on birth control either (and a host of other beliefs they
> hold to), but I do support their right as a religious organization to
> adhere to those beliefs.
>
>> Which brings me back to the
>> same position - if individuals want to forgo birth control, that is
>> fine by me, as long as there is no coercion of any kind between the
>> consenting individuals.
>
> Well of course there is some level of coercion - that's true of any
> prohibited action. If it weren't for that, we could all do anything
> we wanted with no fear of retribution.
There is no reason other than antediluvial preconceived and wrong ideas
for the prohibition. Therefore, the prohibition should be lifted.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 09 Sep 2012 00:32:54 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 9/8/2012 2:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:12:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:48:46 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>>>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>>>>>
>>>>> A right? Paid for by others?
>>>>>
>>>>> What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But there is some economic sense to it.
>>>> As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for birth control for
>>>> irresponsible welfare recipients, nor do I want to pay for their
>>>> kids. What is the best way to handle this?
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather pay a few bucks a month for some form of birth control
>>>> rather than welfare for 18+ years for an unwanted child.
>>>>
>>>> Pay one time for a vasectomy or monthly for a pride of babies
>>>> scattered around town?
>>>
>>> A few -years- of birth control are AbsoFREAKIN'lutely worth it!
>>> Get generics, they're much cheaper.
>>
>> Most people that have kids that we pay for are baby factories. We
>> will pay for the birth control until they decide to hop on board the
>> hand out program "x" per child.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Free needles and free condoms are, without a doubt, an extremely
>>> cheap cost-saving step for the gov't to take. Avoiding hundreds or
>>> thousands of unwanted pregnancies and AIDS cases is A Good Thing(tm)!
>>
>>
>> If only the percent of those using government hand out birth control
>> were a great number. Unfortunately those being paid by the government
>> to have children by far out number those not wanting kids, which I
>> would probably say the ratio is 99 for wanting the government to pay
>> for kids, to 1 wanting the government to pay for not having kids.
>
>Despite very generous fiscal incentives in many European countries, the
>birth rate there is falling to the extent immigration is needed to keep
>the population up. If I have to believe you, Leon, (some) Americans must
>be different <grin>.
Go rent the movie "Idiocracy". It outlines, in detail, what's
happening in America right now. Scary, scary chit, mon.
--
Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before
which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air.
-- John Quincy Adams
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 09 Sep 2012 00:32:54 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 9/8/2012 2:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:12:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:48:46 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>>>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>>>>>
>>>>> A right? Paid for by others?
>>>>>
>>>>> What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But there is some economic sense to it.
>>>> As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for birth control for
>>>> irresponsible welfare recipients, nor do I want to pay for their
>>>> kids. What is the best way to handle this?
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather pay a few bucks a month for some form of birth control
>>>> rather than welfare for 18+ years for an unwanted child.
>>>>
>>>> Pay one time for a vasectomy or monthly for a pride of babies
>>>> scattered around town?
>>>
>>> A few -years- of birth control are AbsoFREAKIN'lutely worth it!
>>> Get generics, they're much cheaper.
>>
>> Most people that have kids that we pay for are baby factories. We
>> will pay for the birth control until they decide to hop on board the
>> hand out program "x" per child.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Free needles and free condoms are, without a doubt, an extremely
>>> cheap cost-saving step for the gov't to take. Avoiding hundreds or
>>> thousands of unwanted pregnancies and AIDS cases is A Good Thing(tm)!
>>
>>
>> If only the percent of those using government hand out birth control
>> were a great number. Unfortunately those being paid by the government
>> to have children by far out number those not wanting kids, which I
>> would probably say the ratio is 99 for wanting the government to pay
>> for kids, to 1 wanting the government to pay for not having kids.
>
>Despite very generous fiscal incentives in many European countries, the
>birth rate there is falling to the extent immigration is needed to keep
>the population up. If I have to believe you, Leon, (some) Americans must
>be different <grin>.
Go rent the movie "Idiocracy". It outlines, in detail, what's
happening in America right now. Scary, scary chit, mon.
==================================================================================
I never rent. It's all online if you know where to look.
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Go rent the movie "Idiocracy". It outlines, in detail, what's
> happening in America right now. Scary, scary chit, mon.
Thanks, but no thanks. Don't need that kind of shit, bubba.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> That would be ideal, and it should work in New York City, where there
>> easily could be choice. Perhaps also in Portland, OR. But would it
>> work in Amarillo, Tx and smaller cities in the middle of nowhere?
>> And this would leave out the whole of whether or not birth control
>> (or whatever) is a right. Birth control is not as demanding on
>> facilities and expertise as heart valve replacement, while being
>> perhaps more economically useful.
>
> I would suspect - or even strongly believe that it would work
> anywhere. It does not require a complex facility to offer birth
> control - just a local pharmacy. As for it being a right - I've never
> thought about that, so I'll just agree that it is an individual's
> right to make that decision. But... gun ownership is a right provided
> for by the Constitution. Should guns be provided by any organization
> that accepts Federal funding? I know - that's an extreme
> counter-point but sometimes the use of extremes like that serve to
> demonstrate a point, even is somewhat off base.
Your "it" in the first sentence in the directly above paragraph, refers
only to birth control, which, ideally, is monitored by a physician if
it's anything other than a condom. Therefore, a hospital affiliation
with the will and expertise is really necessary for health "care".
An aside - there appear to be many not sexually active young girls who
(medically) need hormonal treatment, usually called birth control, to
control their disease or symptoms. To deny those girls medical treatment
they need is torture (IMO).
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> But that's the nature of beliefs like this. They may seem illogical
> or even foolish to you and I - so we don't belong to that
> organization. But - they make perfect sense to the believers, so they
> subscribe. That's their choice. Where the danger comes in IMHO, is
> when you and I presume to determine that a belief is illogical and
> should be abolished - on behalf of someone else.
I got you too <grin>.
My "beef" is that religious institutions do an enormous amount of good.
IMO, they squander that when they impose their beliefs on others, whether
or not those others adhere in one way or another to the beliefs of the
religious institution.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
CW wrote:
> Watched it last night. Seems to be where we're headed. There will be
> a few smart ones left. They will have no trouble gaining complete
> power over the general population and the people will willingly
> fallow as they won't know what else to do. Sometimes I'm glad to be
> old (though I'm kind of a young one around here).
If that were where we were headed, it's where we would have been by now.
This stuff makes poor SCI-FI at best, but if it were even remotely true, it
would have proven itself long ago by now. Generally, stuff like this just
makes good talking material for those who think they are among the smart.
Unfortunately...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 09 Sep 2012 12:53:33 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Go rent the movie "Idiocracy". It outlines, in detail, what's
>> happening in America right now. Scary, scary chit, mon.
>
>Thanks, but no thanks. Don't need that kind of shit, bubba.
The intelligent folks stopped having babies and the idiots without
contraceptives filled the Earth with fools.
IMDB's writeup:
Idiocracy (2006)
R 84 min - Adventure | Comedy | Sci-Fi - 25 January 2007
(Germany)
Private Joe Bauers, the definition of "average American", is selected
by the Pentagon to be the guinea pig for a top-secret hibernation
program. Forgotten, he awakes 500 years in the future. He discovers a
society so incredibly dumbed-down that he's easily the most
intelligent person alive.
--
Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before
which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air.
-- John Quincy Adams
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 09 Sep 2012 12:53:33 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Go rent the movie "Idiocracy". It outlines, in detail, what's
>> happening in America right now. Scary, scary chit, mon.
>
>Thanks, but no thanks. Don't need that kind of shit, bubba.
The intelligent folks stopped having babies and the idiots without
contraceptives filled the Earth with fools.
IMDB's writeup:
Idiocracy (2006)
R 84 min - Adventure | Comedy | Sci-Fi - 25 January 2007
(Germany)
Private Joe Bauers, the definition of "average American", is selected
by the Pentagon to be the guinea pig for a top-secret hibernation
program. Forgotten, he awakes 500 years in the future. He discovers a
society so incredibly dumbed-down that he's easily the most
intelligent person alive.
=====================================================================================
Watched it last night. Seems to be where we're headed. There will be a few
smart ones left. They will have no trouble gaining complete power over the
general population and the people will willingly fallow as they won't know
what else to do. Sometimes I'm glad to be old (though I'm kind of a young
one around here).
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 21:00:02 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>On 09 Sep 2012 00:32:54 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 9/8/2012 2:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:12:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:48:46 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>>>>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A right? Paid for by others?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is some economic sense to it.
>>>>> As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for birth control for
>>>>> irresponsible welfare recipients, nor do I want to pay for their
>>>>> kids. What is the best way to handle this?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd rather pay a few bucks a month for some form of birth control
>>>>> rather than welfare for 18+ years for an unwanted child.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pay one time for a vasectomy or monthly for a pride of babies
>>>>> scattered around town?
>>>>
>>>> A few -years- of birth control are AbsoFREAKIN'lutely worth it!
>>>> Get generics, they're much cheaper.
>>>
>>> Most people that have kids that we pay for are baby factories. We
>>> will pay for the birth control until they decide to hop on board the
>>> hand out program "x" per child.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Free needles and free condoms are, without a doubt, an extremely
>>>> cheap cost-saving step for the gov't to take. Avoiding hundreds or
>>>> thousands of unwanted pregnancies and AIDS cases is A Good Thing(tm)!
>>>
>>>
>>> If only the percent of those using government hand out birth control
>>> were a great number. Unfortunately those being paid by the government
>>> to have children by far out number those not wanting kids, which I
>>> would probably say the ratio is 99 for wanting the government to pay
>>> for kids, to 1 wanting the government to pay for not having kids.
>>
>>Despite very generous fiscal incentives in many European countries, the
>>birth rate there is falling to the extent immigration is needed to keep
>>the population up. If I have to believe you, Leon, (some) Americans must
>>be different <grin>.
>
>Go rent the movie "Idiocracy". It outlines, in detail, what's
>happening in America right now. Scary, scary chit, mon.
>==================================================================================
>I never rent. It's all online if you know where to look.
I usually look on Netflix, since I'm a member.
--
Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before
which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air.
-- John Quincy Adams
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 21:00:02 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>On 09 Sep 2012 00:32:54 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 9/8/2012 2:39 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:12:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:48:46 -0600, Dave Balderstone
>>>>> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, Han
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A right? Paid for by others?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But there is some economic sense to it.
>>>>> As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for birth control for
>>>>> irresponsible welfare recipients, nor do I want to pay for their
>>>>> kids. What is the best way to handle this?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd rather pay a few bucks a month for some form of birth control
>>>>> rather than welfare for 18+ years for an unwanted child.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pay one time for a vasectomy or monthly for a pride of babies
>>>>> scattered around town?
>>>>
>>>> A few -years- of birth control are AbsoFREAKIN'lutely worth it!
>>>> Get generics, they're much cheaper.
>>>
>>> Most people that have kids that we pay for are baby factories. We
>>> will pay for the birth control until they decide to hop on board the
>>> hand out program "x" per child.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Free needles and free condoms are, without a doubt, an extremely
>>>> cheap cost-saving step for the gov't to take. Avoiding hundreds or
>>>> thousands of unwanted pregnancies and AIDS cases is A Good Thing(tm)!
>>>
>>>
>>> If only the percent of those using government hand out birth control
>>> were a great number. Unfortunately those being paid by the government
>>> to have children by far out number those not wanting kids, which I
>>> would probably say the ratio is 99 for wanting the government to pay
>>> for kids, to 1 wanting the government to pay for not having kids.
>>
>>Despite very generous fiscal incentives in many European countries, the
>>birth rate there is falling to the extent immigration is needed to keep
>>the population up. If I have to believe you, Leon, (some) Americans must
>>be different <grin>.
>
>Go rent the movie "Idiocracy". It outlines, in detail, what's
>happening in America right now. Scary, scary chit, mon.
>==================================================================================
>I never rent. It's all online if you know where to look.
I usually look on Netflix, since I'm a member.
=============================================================================
I dropped Netflix about a year ago. I get everything off pirate sites. Much
more variety.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> But that's the nature of beliefs like this. They may seem illogical
>>> or even foolish to you and I - so we don't belong to that
>>> organization. But - they make perfect sense to the believers, so
>>> they subscribe. That's their choice. Where the danger comes in
>>> IMHO, is when you and I presume to determine that a belief is
>>> illogical and should be abolished - on behalf of someone else.
>>
>> I got you too <grin>.
>> My "beef" is that religious institutions do an enormous amount of
>> good. IMO, they squander that when they impose their beliefs on
>> others, whether or not those others adhere in one way or another to
>> the beliefs of the religious institution.
>
> I think we're coming around full circle on this, so maybe we should
> let it fade away, but in my (attempted...) closing thought - the very
> real danger that I see is that what you are trying to avoid is what
> you are trying to do. So... to take your position of not forcing
> beliefs on another, by requiring the RC to support birth control (for
> example), you are in effect doing that very thing. Forcing your
> beliefs (and your view of logic as you understand it), on others.
> Catch-22.
>
> Han - thanks. I've enjoyed batting this around a bit. Especially
> since it was really an academic exercise to some degree, since I don't
> even believe in the RC position. To some degree, it's a tolerance
> thing to me. I disagree with them, but I tolerate them because that's
> their beliefs.
My thanks to you too. You have made me clarify my reasoning.
Simply stated:
Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for. For
institutions and individuals who may be the only provider in town, it is
illegal and immoral to refuse these rights, no matter what they believe
in for themselves.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 09/08/2012 07:09 AM, Han wrote:
>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> But that's the nature of beliefs like this. They may seem
>>>>> illogical or even foolish to you and I - so we don't belong to
>>>>> that organization. But - they make perfect sense to the
>>>>> believers, so they subscribe. That's their choice. Where the
>>>>> danger comes in IMHO, is when you and I presume to determine that
>>>>> a belief is illogical and should be abolished - on behalf of
>>>>> someone else.
>>>>
>>>> I got you too <grin>.
>>>> My "beef" is that religious institutions do an enormous amount of
>>>> good. IMO, they squander that when they impose their beliefs on
>>>> others, whether or not those others adhere in one way or another to
>>>> the beliefs of the religious institution.
>>>
>>> I think we're coming around full circle on this, so maybe we should
>>> let it fade away, but in my (attempted...) closing thought - the
>>> very real danger that I see is that what you are trying to avoid is
>>> what you are trying to do. So... to take your position of not
>>> forcing beliefs on another, by requiring the RC to support birth
>>> control (for example), you are in effect doing that very thing.
>>> Forcing your beliefs (and your view of logic as you understand it),
>>> on others. Catch-22.
>>>
>>> Han - thanks. I've enjoyed batting this around a bit. Especially
>>> since it was really an academic exercise to some degree, since I
>>> don't even believe in the RC position. To some degree, it's a
>>> tolerance thing to me. I disagree with them, but I tolerate them
>>> because that's their beliefs.
>>
>> My thanks to you too. You have made me clarify my reasoning.
>> Simply stated:
>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>> For institutions and individuals who may be the only provider in
>> town, it is illegal and immoral to refuse these rights, no matter
>> what they believe in for themselves.
>>
>
> What about boner pills (Viagra, Cialis, etc) for those who have a
> medical need?
Going by the fact that since long ago those pills were given to veterans
(that is my recollection from some session in the Manhattan VA), I'd say
there is an established "right" to those as well, perhaps on a limited
ration. I suggest researching this to you, my simple search gave silly
answers, as google sometimes does.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 09/08/2012 10:58 AM, Han wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 09/08/2012 07:09 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that's the nature of beliefs like this. They may seem
>>>>>>> illogical or even foolish to you and I - so we don't belong to
>>>>>>> that organization. But - they make perfect sense to the
>>>>>>> believers, so they subscribe. That's their choice. Where the
>>>>>>> danger comes in IMHO, is when you and I presume to determine
>>>>>>> that a belief is illogical and should be abolished - on behalf
>>>>>>> of someone else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I got you too <grin>.
>>>>>> My "beef" is that religious institutions do an enormous amount of
>>>>>> good. IMO, they squander that when they impose their beliefs on
>>>>>> others, whether or not those others adhere in one way or another
>>>>>> to the beliefs of the religious institution.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we're coming around full circle on this, so maybe we
>>>>> should let it fade away, but in my (attempted...) closing thought
>>>>> - the very real danger that I see is that what you are trying to
>>>>> avoid is what you are trying to do. So... to take your position
>>>>> of not forcing beliefs on another, by requiring the RC to support
>>>>> birth control (for example), you are in effect doing that very
>>>>> thing. Forcing your beliefs (and your view of logic as you
>>>>> understand it), on others. Catch-22.
>>>>>
>>>>> Han - thanks. I've enjoyed batting this around a bit. Especially
>>>>> since it was really an academic exercise to some degree, since I
>>>>> don't even believe in the RC position. To some degree, it's a
>>>>> tolerance thing to me. I disagree with them, but I tolerate them
>>>>> because that's their beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> My thanks to you too. You have made me clarify my reasoning.
>>>> Simply stated:
>>>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>>>> For institutions and individuals who may be the only provider in
>>>> town, it is illegal and immoral to refuse these rights, no matter
>>>> what they believe in for themselves.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What about boner pills (Viagra, Cialis, etc) for those who have a
>>> medical need?
>>
>> Going by the fact that since long ago those pills were given to
>> veterans (that is my recollection from some session in the Manhattan
>> VA), I'd say there is an established "right" to those as well,
>> perhaps on a limited ration. I suggest researching this to you, my
>> simple search gave silly answers, as google sometimes does.
>>
>
> Not covered, even partially, by medicare or supplemental insurance and
> very expensive.
Perhaps in your plan this is so, but ...
I have an Aetna supplemental to Medicare plan. Max # of tablets you can
get is 6 pills/30 days or 18/90 days. Costs are $136.08 ($40 copay) and
$372.77 ($80 copay) for retail resp mailorder of the 50 mg dose. Caveat:
They say these are estimated costs, perhaps differnt in real life. Years
ago the drug pusher made me try some, no effect on me then.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in
news:080920121248464473%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:
> In article <[email protected]>, Han
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>
> A right? Paid for by others?
>
> What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
David, with all respect, I disagree. Because it is part of "insurance" you
as an individual do pay for this birth control (or in limited circumstances
it is paid for by the insurance company because it is cheaper than
pregnancy and delivery). It isn't paid for by "others". /THAT/ is a
crock.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 09/08/2012 05:24 PM, Han wrote:
>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 09/08/2012 10:58 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 09/08/2012 07:09 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But that's the nature of beliefs like this. They may seem
>>>>>>>>> illogical or even foolish to you and I - so we don't belong to
>>>>>>>>> that organization. But - they make perfect sense to the
>>>>>>>>> believers, so they subscribe. That's their choice. Where the
>>>>>>>>> danger comes in IMHO, is when you and I presume to determine
>>>>>>>>> that a belief is illogical and should be abolished - on behalf
>>>>>>>>> of someone else.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I got you too <grin>.
>>>>>>>> My "beef" is that religious institutions do an enormous amount
>>>>>>>> of good. IMO, they squander that when they impose their beliefs
>>>>>>>> on others, whether or not those others adhere in one way or
>>>>>>>> another to the beliefs of the religious institution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we're coming around full circle on this, so maybe we
>>>>>>> should let it fade away, but in my (attempted...) closing
>>>>>>> thought - the very real danger that I see is that what you are
>>>>>>> trying to avoid is what you are trying to do. So... to take
>>>>>>> your position of not forcing beliefs on another, by requiring
>>>>>>> the RC to support birth control (for example), you are in effect
>>>>>>> doing that very thing. Forcing your beliefs (and your view of
>>>>>>> logic as you understand it), on others. Catch-22.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Han - thanks. I've enjoyed batting this around a bit.
>>>>>>> Especially since it was really an academic exercise to some
>>>>>>> degree, since I don't even believe in the RC position. To some
>>>>>>> degree, it's a tolerance thing to me. I disagree with them, but
>>>>>>> I tolerate them because that's their beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My thanks to you too. You have made me clarify my reasoning.
>>>>>> Simply stated:
>>>>>> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid
>>>>>> for. For institutions and individuals who may be the only
>>>>>> provider in town, it is illegal and immoral to refuse these
>>>>>> rights, no matter what they believe in for themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What about boner pills (Viagra, Cialis, etc) for those who have a
>>>>> medical need?
>>>>
>>>> Going by the fact that since long ago those pills were given to
>>>> veterans (that is my recollection from some session in the
>>>> Manhattan VA), I'd say there is an established "right" to those as
>>>> well, perhaps on a limited ration. I suggest researching this to
>>>> you, my simple search gave silly answers, as google sometimes does.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not covered, even partially, by medicare or supplemental insurance
>>> and very expensive.
>>
>> Perhaps in your plan this is so, but ...
>>
>> I have an Aetna supplemental to Medicare plan. Max # of tablets you
>> can get is 6 pills/30 days or 18/90 days. Costs are $136.08 ($40
>> copay) and $372.77 ($80 copay) for retail resp mailorder of the 50 mg
>> dose. Caveat: They say these are estimated costs, perhaps differnt
>> in real life. Years ago the drug pusher made me try some, no effect
>> on me then.
>>
>
> I mispoke - it's my medicare part D plan for drugs, not a supplement
> plan, and mine is through Medco. Medicare explicitly states in the
> medicare explanation booklet that there is no coverage through part D
> for ED drugs. I have checked with my part D plan and they verify.
>
> I haven't heard of any supplement plans that supply drugs beyond part
> D.
This plan comes through my former employer, as a plan that supplements
Medicare, ie some of the costs not covered by Medicare, including drugs.
I just "rolled into it" after retiring. I still have to fully understand
what it covers exactly and what not.
For instance, I believe that Medicare covers my wife's TDaP vaccination
(I cought whooping cough, and this vaccination is to prevent Pertussis,
Diphtheria as well as Tetanus. You HAVE TO GET IT EVERY 10 years). But
the shingles vaccine ($250 total cost) is not completely covered. There
is a deductable ($200/year) and then Aetna covers 80% of the remainder.
Now I'm almost well enough to get both those shots myself ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in
news:080920121935028991%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:
> In article <[email protected]>, Han
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in
>> news:080920121248464473%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>, Han
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Birth control is a right, medically, and of course to be paid for.
>> >
>> > A right? Paid for by others?
>> >
>> > What an utter, complete crock of hypocritical bullshit.
>>
>> David, with all respect, I disagree. Because it is part of
>> "insurance" you as an individual do pay for this birth control (or in
>> limited circumstances it is paid for by the insurance company because
>> it is cheaper than pregnancy and delivery). It isn't paid for by
>> "others". /THAT/ is a crock.
>
> You claim it is a right. It is not. Not here in Canada, not under the
> US constitution, and not under any international treaty. That is a
> crock.
>
> You argue that religions should not be allowed to enforce their
> tenets, yet you insist your tenets must be universally adhered to.
> That is hypocrisy.
Dave, it is my hypocrisy???? I don't care what you believe or not, but
as soon as you or anyone else is going to prescribe what I can or cannot
do, I will speak up. Anyone can as far as I am concerned refuse to use
birth control (if the partner agrees, otherwise it is rape). If you
prohibit me from using it, then you are the hypocrit.
The ACA makes birth control a part of healthcare, that makes it a right
to me.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>>>
>>> So - for the sake of the conversation... what would be wrong with a
>>> facility not offering everything? That really would not be so
>>> different from the way things already are. If a facility does not
>>> offer what you want, you have to go to a different facility. That
>>> leaves room for choices based upon beliefs, based upon capability,
>>> etc. (choices on the part of the facility). My thoughts are that if
>>> the Fed reach to the level of mandating everything based upon their
>>> funding, that we reach a point of the Feds dictating - and that is
>>> philosophically bad in my mind.
>>
>> That would be ideal, and it should work in New York City, where there
>> easily could be choice. Perhaps also in Portland, OR. But would it
>> work in Amarillo, Tx and smaller cities in the middle of nowhere?
>> And this would leave out the whole of whether or not birth control
>> (or whatever) is a right. Birth control is not as demanding on
>> facilities and expertise as heart valve replacement, while being
>> perhaps more economically useful.
>
> I am reliably informed that a round-trip bus ticket from Amarillo to
> Dallas can be had for $98. Or, if you're in a hurry, Southwest
> Airlines has a round trip for thirty-eight dollars more.
OTOH, getting into NYC and back from here takes a little over an hour and
far less money than that. Nevertheless, I am switching to a local
physician now I don't work in NYC anymore ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>>
>> OK. I see your point, but IMO (BIG caveat) it is not valid. With
>> the ACA, the US has effectively stated that medical care is a right,
>> not a privilege, while insisting care should be paid for. That
>> medical care encompasses all kinds of care, including birth control.
>> To exclude birth control is not logical. This does not force the use
>> of birth control onto anyone, just like you're perfectly free to
>> refuse dialysis or a bypass.
>
> Birth Control is NOT medical care. As a matter of fact, birth control
> is designed to INTERFERE with normal bodily functions. It is in the
> same category as cosmetic surgery, tanning, Lasik surgery, and other
> things that mess with a body but are not necessary for proper bodily
> functions.
>
> On the contrary, Viagra is not covered by insurance. The purpose of
> Viagra is to RESTORE a natural bodily function.
>
> Go figure.
I thought you were on a host of medications. ALL of them are poisons
that interfere with natural bodily functions, including the aspirin you
might be taking to control your prostaglandin production.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> Dave, it is my hypocrisy???? I don't care what you believe or not,
>> but as soon as you or anyone else is going to prescribe what I can or
>> cannot do, I will speak up. Anyone can as far as I am concerned
>> refuse to use birth control (if the partner agrees, otherwise it is
>> rape). If you prohibit me from using it, then you are the hypocrit.
>
> Han - you are the Master of mis-statement. Rape has a definition - go
> look it up. One could have willing sex without birth control. Birth
> control is not a component of rape. That's where your ideas really
> run weird. You take things to unreal lengths.
>
> But - you are indeed saying exactly what Dave suggested - you proclaim
> that noone should prescribe what you can or cannot do, but you suggest
> that very power in the declarations you make of others.
Mike, perhaps you misread what I meant. I'll spell it out <grin>:
If one of the partners having sex demanded that no birth control be used,
while the other wanted that, I will consider that rape.
>> The ACA makes birth control a part of healthcare, that makes it a
>> right to me.
>
> Finally - you said it the right way... it makes it a right TO YOU.
> That however does not make it a right. It just means you consider it
> to be so.
SCOTUS said ACA was OK ... It's not just me.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>> OK. I see your point, but IMO (BIG caveat) it is not valid. With
>>>> the ACA, the US has effectively stated that medical care is a right,
>>>> not a privilege, while insisting care should be paid for. That
>>>> medical care encompasses all kinds of care, including birth control.
>>>> To exclude birth control is not logical. This does not force the
>>>> use of birth control onto anyone, just like you're perfectly free to
>>>> refuse dialysis or a bypass.
>>>
>>> Birth Control is NOT medical care. As a matter of fact, birth control
>>> is designed to INTERFERE with normal bodily functions. It is in the
>>> same category as cosmetic surgery, tanning, Lasik surgery, and other
>>> things that mess with a body but are not necessary for proper bodily
>>> functions.
>>>
>>> On the contrary, Viagra is not covered by insurance. The purpose of
>>> Viagra is to RESTORE a natural bodily function.
>>>
>>> Go figure.
>>
>> I thought you were on a host of medications. ALL of them are poisons
>> that interfere with natural bodily functions, including the aspirin
>> you might be taking to control your prostaglandin production.
>
> You thought wrong. I'm NOT on a "host of medications."
That's where the disclaimer "I thought" came in. Apologies offered.
Blame it on an old memory system. Sorryyyy!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Han wrote:
>
> I apologize if I offended anyone. I just meant the statement as a
> wakeup call. I am as much against any extremist religion as anyone.
FWIW Han - I was not offended by anything you have said. But - what is this
Wake Up Call crap? Who do you feel you need to wake up? Why? Because you
have a differing opinion? Is that a cause for a wake up call? I think not!
You are an advocate of extreme religion. You advocate a religion according
to Han - and that is extreme.
>
> Freedom of religion is a personal thing. When the institution is as
> big and important to many as the catholic church, the persons in
> charge should tread carefully and not dictate behavior. They should
> respect the separation of church and state.
Bullshit. Han - you fool yourself. If you are not a Catholic, then they
are not big, nor are they important to you. You just can't accept a
different point of view, can you? You squirm to try to create a rational
reason for controlling that which you are not in agreement with. That sir,
is very wrong.
>
> If there is a choice with everything being equal, that is certainly
> true. Sometimes the choice isn't that equal, as in when a hospital or
> doctor is close to the only thing in town. For instance, I believe
> that there have been legal rulings that pharmacists cannot refuse to
> sell birth control because it is against theirpersonal religious
> convictions.
Oh bullshit again Han. You are just trying to contrive excuses now.
Failed!
>
> That's fine with me Tim. Everyone should follow their convictions.
> More power to the individual!
Unless of course, the individual is RC...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
>
> OK. I see your point, but IMO (BIG caveat) it is not valid. With the
> ACA, the US has effectively stated that medical care is a right, not a
> privilege, while insisting care should be paid for. That medical care
> encompasses all kinds of care, including birth control. To exclude
> birth control is not logical. This does not force the use of birth
> control onto anyone, just like you're perfectly free to refuse
> dialysis or a bypass.
So - for the sake of the conversation... what would be wrong with a facility
not offering everything? That really would not be so different from the way
things already are. If a facility does not offer what you want, you have to
go to a different facility. That leaves room for choices based upon
beliefs, based upon capability, etc. (choices on the part of the facility).
My thoughts are that if the Fed reach to the level of mandating everything
based upon their funding, that we reach a point of the Feds dictating - and
that is philosophically bad in my mind.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
>
> Dave, it is my hypocrisy???? I don't care what you believe or not,
> but as soon as you or anyone else is going to prescribe what I can or
> cannot do, I will speak up. Anyone can as far as I am concerned
> refuse to use birth control (if the partner agrees, otherwise it is
> rape). If you prohibit me from using it, then you are the hypocrit.
Han - you are the Master of mis-statement. Rape has a definition - go look
it up. One could have willing sex without birth control. Birth control is
not a component of rape. That's where your ideas really run weird. You
take things to unreal lengths.
But - you are indeed saying exactly what Dave suggested - you proclaim that
noone should prescribe what you can or cannot do, but you suggest that very
power in the declarations you make of others.
>
> The ACA makes birth control a part of healthcare, that makes it a
> right to me.
Finally - you said it the right way... it makes it a right TO YOU. That
however does not make it a right. It just means you consider it to be so.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> But that's the nature of beliefs like this. They may seem illogical
>> or even foolish to you and I - so we don't belong to that
>> organization. But - they make perfect sense to the believers, so
>> they subscribe. That's their choice. Where the danger comes in
>> IMHO, is when you and I presume to determine that a belief is
>> illogical and should be abolished - on behalf of someone else.
>
> I got you too <grin>.
> My "beef" is that religious institutions do an enormous amount of
> good. IMO, they squander that when they impose their beliefs on
> others, whether or not those others adhere in one way or another to
> the beliefs of the religious institution.
I think we're coming around full circle on this, so maybe we should let it
fade away, but in my (attempted...) closing thought - the very real danger
that I see is that what you are trying to avoid is what you are trying to
do. So... to take your position of not forcing beliefs on another, by
requiring the RC to support birth control (for example), you are in effect
doing that very thing. Forcing your beliefs (and your view of logic as you
understand it), on others. Catch-22.
Han - thanks. I've enjoyed batting this around a bit. Especially since it
was really an academic exercise to some degree, since I don't even believe
in the RC position. To some degree, it's a tolerance thing to me. I
disagree with them, but I tolerate them because that's their beliefs.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 09 Sep 2012 12:50:05 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>I'm going to get it. But I want to get rid of the last vestiges of my
>>whooping cough first. Then first that TDaP vaccine, and a week or so
>>after that, the shingles vaccine.
>>
>>Have you had your TDaP within the last 10 years, Ed? If not, prepare
>>for over 2 months of horrible coughing, and you can't see your
>>grandkids during that time!!
>
>
> Last Friday my wife got the Tetanus, but not the Pertussis. Our
> youngest grandchild is 16 so we don't have much contact with little
> kids so the doctor said it may be best for her not to get it.
>
> I had no side effect when I got it a few years ago though.
I live in northern NJ, and here ADULTS are having pertussis. I really
disliked coughing this badly for 2 months. I am very sorry that
apparently my last tetanus shot didn't have the pertussis component in
it. I am advising any adult to get the shot. I'm almost 68 years old,
and my oldest grandchild is 16, youngest is less than 2.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 09 Sep 2012 12:50:05 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>I'm going to get it. But I want to get rid of the last vestiges of my
>whooping cough first. Then first that TDaP vaccine, and a week or so
>after that, the shingles vaccine.
>
>Have you had your TDaP within the last 10 years, Ed? If not, prepare for
>over 2 months of horrible coughing, and you can't see your grandkids
>during that time!!
Last Friday my wife got the Tetanus, but not the Pertussis. Our
youngest grandchild is 16 so we don't have much contact with little
kids so the doctor said it may be best for her not to get it.
I had no side effect when I got it a few years ago though.
Han wrote:
>
> First of all, I have no pity on the catholic church, which is
> antediluvial in its policies. If we let the catholic church dictate
> law, then we'll have to let the ultra-orthodox muslims commit honor
> killings. In my book, anyone is free to follow their individual
> beliefs, but religion has no place DICTATING law. As you darn well
> know, the objections of the catholic church were heard and dealt
> with. No one who objects to those birth control or abortion policies
> has to pay. Period.
I'm not a Catholic, so I have no dog in this hunt Han, but I have to
question your assertions above. In what way has the Catholic church
dictated anything?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 08:00:10 -0500, Tim Daneliuk
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 09/08/2012 06:40 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And this is where the conservative narrative falls apart. When you
>>> take someone's money, you take the conditions that go with it. There
>>> is no "extortion". The RC folks could decide what is more important:
>>> Their religious principles or Federal money. You don't get to take
>>> the piper's money and then scream about how bad the tune is ...
>>
>> I don't see it that way Tim. That money is for a specific purpose, and IMHO
>> should not be used to leverage the wishes of the Feds. Admitedly, my
>> contention probably plays a little more cleanly in the matter of the Feds
>> holding back funds from States, than it does in this particular point, but
>> the principle applies all the same. Now - if the Feds were to say that of
>> the total amount of money they have to offer a hospital X% is earmarked for
>> abortion services (or any other service for that matter), and the hospital
>> opted not to offer that service, I would be fine with them not receiving the
>> X%.
>>
>
>The problem here is that the Feds should not be involved in ANY of this -
>the funding OR setting hospital policy. But as long as people take
>government money, they have to take the strings that go with it.
Precisely.
>My undergrad was at a very conservative Protestant school. This
>institution did not wish to be told what to do by the government
>as regards to hiring, admittance policy, and all the rest of the
>politically correct drool that passes for "tolerance". So, they
>simply refused all forms of government handouts. The school itself
>did not accept them and they did not accept government grant money
>on behalf of the students. Problem solved. This is how the RC
>schools and hospitals should also solve it: Don't accept Federal funding
>or Medicaid patients and the morons in D.C. would have nothing to say.
+1
--
Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before
which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air.
-- John Quincy Adams
On 09/10/2012 07:50 AM, Han wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Catholic hospitals would lose less money if they didn't accept
>> Medicaid or Medicare patients or even the indigent. Perhaps that's
>> what they ought to do?
>
> ???? Say again, why are there Catholic hospitals?
>
Because the first line of care to alleviate human suffering has
always been people of faith pooling their money and creating
religious charities.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
Han wrote:
> A charitable institution can just set the rules they are going to
> follow, even if they weren't going to accept fed or insur
> reimbusement?
Yes. Why not? And where do you find that not to be the case?
> That must really cut down on their customer base, and
> I would guess, also on their commitment to the poor and infirm, don't
> you think?
Perhaps it cuts down on their customer base, but on their commitment? Come
on Han - that is just your own personal insistence at work again. So...
again, it is Han's definition of what constitutes "commitment", huh?
> I can see that happening 100 years ago, with some rich
> benefactors and a few choice poor, and without the HIPAA and other
> regulations they will surely need to follow nowadays ...
HIPAA? A few choice poor? Some rich benefactors? Han - what kind of dream
world do you live in?
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Catholic hospitals would lose less money if they didn't accept
> Medicaid or Medicare patients or even the indigent. Perhaps that's
> what they ought to do?
???? Say again, why are there Catholic hospitals?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:504DE7CF.9080301
@tundraware.com:
> On 09/10/2012 07:50 AM, Han wrote:
>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Catholic hospitals would lose less money if they didn't accept
>>> Medicaid or Medicare patients or even the indigent. Perhaps that's
>>> what they ought to do?
>>
>> ???? Say again, why are there Catholic hospitals?
>
> Because the first line of care to alleviate human suffering has
> always been people of faith pooling their money and creating
> religious charities.
If they are indeed (in large part) charitable institutions (such as
caring for the poor and infirm), wouldn't it be really silly NOT to
"accept Medicaid or Medicare patients or even the indigent" as Keith was
suggesting?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 09/10/2012 10:57 AM, Han wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:504DE7CF.9080301
>> @tundraware.com:
>>
>>> On 09/10/2012 07:50 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Catholic hospitals would lose less money if they didn't accept
>>>>> Medicaid or Medicare patients or even the indigent. Perhaps
>>>>> that's what they ought to do?
>>>>
>>>> ???? Say again, why are there Catholic hospitals?
>>>
>>> Because the first line of care to alleviate human suffering has
>>> always been people of faith pooling their money and creating
>>> religious charities.
>>
>> If they are indeed (in large part) charitable institutions (such as
>> caring for the poor and infirm), wouldn't it be really silly NOT to
>> "accept Medicaid or Medicare patients or even the indigent" as Keith
>> was suggesting?
>>
>
> I believe you may be missing the point. When you take someone's
> money, you are also taking the conditions that go with it. Charitable
> orgs do generally want to help as much as they can, but the "strings"
> that come with government money are often not worth it. That's why,
> for example, you're seeing doctors move toward a fixed fee, cash on,
> no insurance model, especially for immediate care clinic type stuff.
I'm not following, Tim. Doctors accepting no insurance, just cash, are
not charitable institutions, are they? I thought they were for profit.
I can definitely understand that they are unwilling to jump through the
reimbursement hoops of the insurance companies. Like my dentist now I
don't have dental insurance anymore, I pay him as soon as he bills me
(with a pre-arranged discount).
A charitable institution can just set the rules they are going to follow,
even if they weren't going to accept fed or insur reimbusement? That
must really cut down on their customer base, and I would guess, also on
their commitment to the poor and infirm, don't you think? I can see that
happening 100 years ago, with some rich benefactors and a few choice
poor, and without the HIPAA and other regulations they will surely need
to follow nowadays ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 09/10/2012 10:57 AM, Han wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote in news:504DE7CF.9080301
> @tundraware.com:
>
>> On 09/10/2012 07:50 AM, Han wrote:
>>> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Catholic hospitals would lose less money if they didn't accept
>>>> Medicaid or Medicare patients or even the indigent. Perhaps that's
>>>> what they ought to do?
>>>
>>> ???? Say again, why are there Catholic hospitals?
>>
>> Because the first line of care to alleviate human suffering has
>> always been people of faith pooling their money and creating
>> religious charities.
>
> If they are indeed (in large part) charitable institutions (such as
> caring for the poor and infirm), wouldn't it be really silly NOT to
> "accept Medicaid or Medicare patients or even the indigent" as Keith was
> suggesting?
>
I believe you may be missing the point. When you take someone's money,
you are also taking the conditions that go with it. Charitable
orgs do generally want to help as much as they can, but the "strings"
that come with government money are often not worth it. That's why,
for example, you're seeing doctors move toward a fixed fee, cash on,
no insurance model, especially for immediate care clinic type stuff.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
Han wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Catholic hospitals would lose less money if they didn't accept
>> Medicaid or Medicare patients or even the indigent. Perhaps that's
>> what they ought to do?
>
> ???? Say again, why are there Catholic hospitals?
Perhaps this is a good opportunity to ask why you believe Catholic hospitals
exist. Not to put you on the spot to prove you wrong, but perhaps your
answer will shed light onto your other thoughts. Pardon me - I am still
delving into that world of academic or philisophical thought - if that's
what it really is. Oh hell... Conversation.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 08:00:10 -0500, Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 09/08/2012 06:40 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And this is where the conservative narrative falls apart. When you
>>> take someone's money, you take the conditions that go with it. There
>>> is no "extortion". The RC folks could decide what is more important:
>>> Their religious principles or Federal money. You don't get to take
>>> the piper's money and then scream about how bad the tune is ...
>>
>> I don't see it that way Tim. That money is for a specific purpose, and IMHO
>> should not be used to leverage the wishes of the Feds. Admitedly, my
>> contention probably plays a little more cleanly in the matter of the Feds
>> holding back funds from States, than it does in this particular point, but
>> the principle applies all the same. Now - if the Feds were to say that of
>> the total amount of money they have to offer a hospital X% is earmarked for
>> abortion services (or any other service for that matter), and the hospital
>> opted not to offer that service, I would be fine with them not receiving the
>> X%.
>>
>
>The problem here is that the Feds should not be involved in ANY of this -
>the funding OR setting hospital policy. But as long as people take
>government money, they have to take the strings that go with it.
>
>My undergrad was at a very conservative Protestant school. This
>institution did not wish to be told what to do by the government
>as regards to hiring, admittance policy, and all the rest of the
>politically correct drool that passes for "tolerance". So, they
>simply refused all forms of government handouts. The school itself
>did not accept them and they did not accept government grant money
>on behalf of the students. Problem solved. This is how the RC
>schools and hospitals should also solve it: Don't accept Federal funding
>or Medicaid patients and the morons in D.C. would have nothing to say.
Catholic hospitals would lose less money if they didn't accept Medicaid or
Medicare patients or even the indigent. Perhaps that's what they ought to do?
Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:bba4d$5048faac [email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> First of all, I have no pity on the catholic church, which is
>>> antediluvial in its policies. If we let the catholic church dictate
>>> law, then we'll have to let the ultra-orthodox muslims commit honor
>>> killings. In my book, anyone is free to follow their individual
>>> beliefs, but religion has no place DICTATING law. As you darn well
>>> know, the objections of the catholic church were heard and dealt
>>> with. No one who objects to those birth control or abortion
>>> policies has to pay. Period.
>>
>> I'm not a Catholic, so I have no dog in this hunt Han, but I have to
>> question your assertions above. In what way has the Catholic church
>> dictated anything?
>
> As I understand it they want to prescribe to their followers what they
> can do or not with regard to birth control etc. That, in my book, is
> an attempt at dictating.
They have their beliefs - of course they try to prescribe to their
followers. What else would a faith do Han? They believe in this stuff.
Attempt at dictating? Come on Han - it's their damned faith. So what -
everybody (including Catholics) should believe as you do? Wouldn't that be
dictating? You can't seem to let them believe as they wish to...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 10 Sep 2012 12:50:23 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Catholic hospitals would lose less money if they didn't accept
>> Medicaid or Medicare patients or even the indigent. Perhaps that's
>> what they ought to do?
>
>???? Say again, why are there Catholic hospitals?
Because that's what they do?
Han wrote:
>
> Mike, no, I cannot accept that refusing to offer birth control is
> permissible under a religious concept, since birth control is on a
> philosophical level the same as dialysis.
FTR - I am not against birth control either. I know you have not suggested
that I may be, but I just wanted to put that out there since I am taking a
position which supports an organization that does not believe in it.
> Science, or whatever you
> want to call the current practice of medicine, has given us many
> possibilities to influence life in positive ways, and to exclude
> birth control is not only illogical, it is wrong.
Well - I can see it as completely logical. There is quite a gap between
life saving measures and preferences. Regardless of the beliefs on either
side, it is pretty well acknowledged by both that birth control is not a
life saving practice.
> All these medical
> advances are now a right to have available under ACA (paid for by the
> subscribers in some way, of course). The catholic church does NOT
> prohibit dialysis, and it is at least as "unnatural" as birth
> control, if not more.
Yes, but their point is not one of unnatural. The RC church does not hold
against any form of medical treatment because it is unnatural. They hold
specifically against birth control for entirely different reasons. Natural
and unnatural have nothing to do with it.
> Therefore I cannot accept the church's
> position even under religious concepts.
Which is why you and I make decisions to follow, or not to follow a
particular religion, or no religion. I don't agree with their position on
birth control either (and a host of other beliefs they hold to), but I do
support their right as a religious organization to adhere to those beliefs.
> Which brings me back to the
> same position - if individuals want to forgo birth control, that is
> fine by me, as long as there is no coercion of any kind between the
> consenting individuals.
Well of course there is some level of coercion - that's true of any
prohibited action. If it weren't for that, we could all do anything we
wanted with no fear of retribution.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Larry Jaques wrote:
>I still think voluntary sterilization for Welfare mothers (AND
>fathers, when found) would be the hot ticket. You want the money,
>you
>get the operation, suckah!
-----------------------------------------
Wasn't WWII fought to put and end to Nazi activities like that?
Lew
> Nah! I'm in favour of having the tongues of mouthpieces like you
> removed to get the money.
>
> Want to eat? Then you can do it in silence. Suckah!
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 20:03:45 -0700, Larry Jaques
>>The truth to the matter though is that you will pay for birth control
>>and later on pay for the child after the slip.
>
>I still think voluntary sterilization for Welfare mothers (AND
>fathers, when found) would be the hot ticket. You want the money, you
>get the operation, suckah!
Nah! I'm in favour of having the tongues of mouthpieces like you
removed to get the money.
Want to eat? Then you can do it in silence. Suckah!
Han wrote:
>
> That would be ideal, and it should work in New York City, where there
> easily could be choice. Perhaps also in Portland, OR. But would it
> work in Amarillo, Tx and smaller cities in the middle of nowhere?
> And this would leave out the whole of whether or not birth control
> (or whatever) is a right. Birth control is not as demanding on
> facilities and expertise as heart valve replacement, while being
> perhaps more economically useful.
I would suspect - or even strongly believe that it would work anywhere. It
does not require a complex facility to offer birth control - just a local
pharmacy. As for it being a right - I've never thought about that, so I'll
just agree that it is an individual's right to make that decision. But...
gun ownership is a right provided for by the Constitution. Should guns be
provided by any organization that accepts Federal funding? I know - that's
an extreme counter-point but sometimes the use of extremes like that serve
to demonstrate a point, even is somewhat off base.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Dave wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 23:28:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> Well then - run for office and change it. It's easy to sit at a
>> keyboard and repeat the same things your dad has said, isn't it? I
>> don't disagree that things need to change, but this isn't the way to
>> change it. The way to change it is to... well... ummm... oh hell, I
>> don't know...
>
> I suspect that a large number of people go into politics with the idea
> of changing thing for the better. And then, once they're there, they
> find out what kind of oppressive atmosphere they've really entered.
>
> I'm not saying that's an excuse for the way they run the country, just
> that it maybe a reason why it's happening.
I've seen something similar. A friend got on the school board, intent on
bringing about change. In short time he became assimilated and all of his
great ideas fell by the wayside.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 06 Sep 2012 11:59:45 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 23:28:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>Well then - run for office and change it. It's easy to sit at a
>>>keyboard and repeat the same things your dad has said, isn't it? I
>>>don't disagree that things need to change, but this isn't the way to
>>>change it. The way to change it is to... well... ummm... oh hell, I
>>>don't know...
>>
>> I suspect that a large number of people go into politics with the idea
>> of changing thing for the better. And then, once they're there, they
>> find out what kind of oppressive atmosphere they've really entered.
>>
>> I'm not saying that's an excuse for the way they run the country, just
>> that it maybe a reason why it's happening.
>
>So now we have social media to express our grievances and ask for
>redress. Hold the Reps' etc feet to the fire.
HEADLINE: Entire U.S. Nation Saved By Facebook. Film at 11.
(Don't hold your breath.)
--
The most powerful factors in the world are clear
ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will.
-- J. Arthur Thomson
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:34:35 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 23:28:26 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> The way
>> to change it is to... well... ummm... oh hell, I don't know...
>
>And that is the problem. Washington warned against political parties and
>it didn't take very long to prove him right - the negative campaigning
>against Jefferson was as bad as today, they just didn't have the media we
>do.
>
>As long as people are elected, and those with money can push their agenda
>with financial support, nothing is going to change - including their
>ability to influence.
>
>Maybe it's time for a new party, but that attempt has a pretty solid
>failure rate - it just doesn't have the money to compete.
>
>The best we can do is vote for the lesser of two weevils.
While everyone does that, the weevils win--every time.
--
The most powerful factors in the world are clear
ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will.
-- J. Arthur Thomson
Han wrote:
>
> Mike, perhaps you misread what I meant. I'll spell it out <grin>:
> If one of the partners having sex demanded that no birth control be
> used, while the other wanted that, I will consider that rape.
>
Again - go look up the defintion. You are reaching Han.
>>> The ACA makes birth control a part of healthcare, that makes it a
>>> right to me.
>>
>> Finally - you said it the right way... it makes it a right TO YOU.
>> That however does not make it a right. It just means you consider it
>> to be so.
>
> SCOTUS said ACA was OK ... It's not just me.
That does not make your proclamations of rights to be true. What a
government may pay for does not constitute a right. SCOTUS ruled on a very
narrow interpretation - more to come, I'm sure...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
DanG wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 8:16 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/humor/comments/zd9ae/2012_dnc_convention_schedule/
>>
>
>
> I sure am tired of this closed mind bigoted political stuff. I don't
> understand why 500 some fairly intelligent people can meet on our
> behalf and behave like little kids with the "he said..., he did...
> did to did not.....syndromes. There has to be some intelligent,
> legal, productive directions to steer this country and the world.
> Attacking the other party just because it is the other party makes no
> sense to me, and I hope is making less and less sense to others.
>
> My dad is 92 and he says he's been waiting for the same thing his
> whole life.
Well then - run for office and change it. It's easy to sit at a keyboard
and repeat the same things your dad has said, isn't it? I don't disagree
that things need to change, but this isn't the way to change it. The way to
change it is to... well... ummm... oh hell, I don't know...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
> They can believe as they want, Mike. But they want to prescribe
> things to everyone they come into contact with, such as hospitals and
> their patients, even if much of their funding comes from the feds.
> No go.
I can see their point Han. They operate by their beliefs - just like you or
I do. Don't you see it as a bit wrong for you, or I, or a governement to
dictate to them how they should operate - despite their beliefs? I do. If
you don't like their beliefs, then don't go to their hospital.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
> The right way to do this is to tell the schoo, "Fine you don't have
> to offer anything of the sort. However, this will disqualify you
> from any sort of Federal aid, and your students will not be eligible for
> Federal
> funds either." Then each party can decide what is more important.
Although this is indeed how the Federal government manipulates states and
other organizations it wants to "influence", I have to disagree that this
would be the proper way. To me, this is extortion and is a practice the
Federal government should be prohibited from performing.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>> They can believe as they want, Mike. But they want to prescribe
>> things to everyone they come into contact with, such as hospitals and
>> their patients, even if much of their funding comes from the feds.
>> No go.
>
> I can see their point Han. They operate by their beliefs - just like
> you or I do. Don't you see it as a bit wrong for you, or I, or a
> governement to dictate to them how they should operate - despite their
> beliefs? I do. If you don't like their beliefs, then don't go to
> their hospital.
I guess I am not making myself clear. If catholics or their institutions
do not want to supply birth control, they don't have to. The insurance
plan they "sell" to their employees have voluntarily decided to supply
birth control, without charge. That should be the end of the discussion.
The employees then can decide to follow catholic "doctrine" or not.
===========================================================================
+1
Han wrote:
>
> OK. I see your point, but IMO (BIG caveat) it is not valid. With the
> ACA, the US has effectively stated that medical care is a right, not a
> privilege, while insisting care should be paid for. That medical care
> encompasses all kinds of care, including birth control. To exclude
> birth control is not logical. This does not force the use of birth
> control onto anyone, just like you're perfectly free to refuse
> dialysis or a bypass.
Birth Control is NOT medical care. As a matter of fact, birth control is
designed to INTERFERE with normal bodily functions. It is in the same
category as cosmetic surgery, tanning, Lasik surgery, and other things that
mess with a body but are not necessary for proper bodily functions.
On the contrary, Viagra is not covered by insurance. The purpose of Viagra
is to RESTORE a natural bodily function.
Go figure.
On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 23:28:26 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>Well then - run for office and change it. It's easy to sit at a keyboard
>and repeat the same things your dad has said, isn't it? I don't disagree
>that things need to change, but this isn't the way to change it. The way to
>change it is to... well... ummm... oh hell, I don't know...
I suspect that a large number of people go into politics with the idea
of changing thing for the better. And then, once they're there, they
find out what kind of oppressive atmosphere they've really entered.
I'm not saying that's an excuse for the way they run the country, just
that it maybe a reason why it's happening.
On 9/4/12 8:16 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> http://www.reddit.com/r/humor/comments/zd9ae/2012_dnc_convention_schedule/
>
I'm stealing this.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 9/4/2012 8:16 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> http://www.reddit.com/r/humor/comments/zd9ae/2012_dnc_convention_schedule/
>
I sure am tired of this closed mind bigoted political stuff. I don't
understand why 500 some fairly intelligent people can meet on our behalf
and behave like little kids with the "he said..., he did... did to did
not.....syndromes. There has to be some intelligent, legal, productive
directions to steer this country and the world. Attacking the other
party just because it is the other party makes no sense to me, and I
hope is making less and less sense to others.
My dad is 92 and he says he's been waiting for the same thing his whole
life.
--
___________________________________
Keep the whole world singing . . .
Dan G
remove the seven
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 23:28:26 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
> The way
> to change it is to... well... ummm... oh hell, I don't know...
And that is the problem. Washington warned against political parties and
it didn't take very long to prove him right - the negative campaigning
against Jefferson was as bad as today, they just didn't have the media we
do.
As long as people are elected, and those with money can push their agenda
with financial support, nothing is going to change - including their
ability to influence.
Maybe it's time for a new party, but that attempt has a pretty solid
failure rate - it just doesn't have the money to compete.
The best we can do is vote for the lesser of two weevils.
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
On 06 Sep 2012 19:54:42 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:bba4d$5048faac [email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Han wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all, I have no pity on the catholic church, which is
>>>>> antediluvial in its policies. If we let the catholic church
>>>>> dictate law, then we'll have to let the ultra-orthodox muslims
>>>>> commit honor killings. In my book, anyone is free to follow their
>>>>> individual beliefs, but religion has no place DICTATING law. As
>>>>> you darn well know, the objections of the catholic church were
>>>>> heard and dealt with. No one who objects to those birth control or
>>>>> abortion policies has to pay. Period.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a Catholic, so I have no dog in this hunt Han, but I have to
>>>> question your assertions above. In what way has the Catholic church
>>>> dictated anything?
>>>
>>> As I understand it they want to prescribe to their followers what
>>> they can do or not with regard to birth control etc. That, in my
>>> book, is an attempt at dictating.
>>
>> They have their beliefs - of course they try to prescribe to their
>> followers. What else would a faith do Han? They believe in this
>> stuff. Attempt at dictating? Come on Han - it's their damned faith.
>> So what - everybody (including Catholics) should believe as you do?
>> Wouldn't that be dictating? You can't seem to let them believe as
>> they wish to...
>
>They can believe as they want, Mike. But they want to prescribe things
>to everyone they come into contact with, such as hospitals and their
>patients, even if much of their funding comes from the feds. No go.
You're lying again, Han.
On 08 Sep 2012 02:26:39 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>>
>> "Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> They should respect the
>> separation of church and state
>>
>> Where in the Constitution does it say anything about "separation of
>> church and state"?
>
>The words are in the First amendment in this format: "Congress shall make
>no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
>exercise thereof".
>
>According to Wikipedia:
><quote>
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_Unite
>d_States>
>"Separation of church and state" (sometimes "wall of separation between
>church and state") is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson (in his 1802
>letter to the Danbury Baptists) and others expressing an understanding of
>the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise
>Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
>The phrase has since been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the
>United States.
></quote>
>
>We can discuss some other time whether a generalized teaching in schools
>of the philosophies underlying religion or religions would be useful.
Y'mean the ones which relate that there is a _real_ killing to be made
(moneywise) off the gullible and the fearful? Those philosophies?
>IMO, with good teachers that does not have to end up in proselytizing,
>nor in promoting or bashing any religion. As you know I am agnostic ...
Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic who lies awake all night,
wondering if there really is a Dog?
--
Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before
which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air.
-- John Quincy Adams
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 20:24:22 -0500, DanG <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 9/4/2012 8:16 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/humor/comments/zd9ae/2012_dnc_convention_schedule/
>>
>
>
>I sure am tired of this closed mind bigoted political stuff.
Then why do you insist on reading it?
On 09/08/2012 06:40 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>>
>> And this is where the conservative narrative falls apart. When you
>> take someone's money, you take the conditions that go with it. There
>> is no "extortion". The RC folks could decide what is more important:
>> Their religious principles or Federal money. You don't get to take
>> the piper's money and then scream about how bad the tune is ...
>
> I don't see it that way Tim. That money is for a specific purpose, and IMHO
> should not be used to leverage the wishes of the Feds. Admitedly, my
> contention probably plays a little more cleanly in the matter of the Feds
> holding back funds from States, than it does in this particular point, but
> the principle applies all the same. Now - if the Feds were to say that of
> the total amount of money they have to offer a hospital X% is earmarked for
> abortion services (or any other service for that matter), and the hospital
> opted not to offer that service, I would be fine with them not receiving the
> X%.
>
The problem here is that the Feds should not be involved in ANY of this -
the funding OR setting hospital policy. But as long as people take
government money, they have to take the strings that go with it.
My undergrad was at a very conservative Protestant school. This
institution did not wish to be told what to do by the government
as regards to hiring, admittance policy, and all the rest of the
politically correct drool that passes for "tolerance". So, they
simply refused all forms of government handouts. The school itself
did not accept them and they did not accept government grant money
on behalf of the students. Problem solved. This is how the RC
schools and hospitals should also solve it: Don't accept Federal funding
or Medicaid patients and the morons in D.C. would have nothing to say.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>> I just can't get my head around the refusal of the catholic church
>>> to even permit birth control. I am not asking them to promote birth
>>> control (though that would be great too!), but to just allow it.
>>
>> Why Han? Can you not accept that they (others) have a different
>> belief? Why should they conform to your wishes or your beliefs? That
>> just does not sound like other things I've read from you.
>
> Mike, no, I cannot accept that refusing to offer birth control is
> permissible under a religious concept, since birth control is on a
> philosophical level the same as dialysis. Science, or whatever you
> want to call the current practice of medicine, has given us many
> possibilities to influence life in positive ways, and to exclude
> birth control is not only illogical, it is wrong. All these medical
> advances are now a right to have available under ACA (paid for by the
> subscribers in some way, of course). The catholic church does NOT
> prohibit dialysis, and it is at least as "unnatural" as birth
> control, if not more. Therefore I cannot accept the church's
> position even under religious concepts. Which brings me back to the
> same position - if individuals want to forgo birth control, that is
> fine by me, as long as there is no coercion of any kind between the
> consenting individuals.
Here's a quick quiz and, some would say, a trick question: What was God's
first commandment? Now I'm not talking about the big ten but rather the
first thing he told humans to do or not do?
Scroll down for the answer:
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY, and
fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon
the earth." [Genesis 1:28]
Therefore, the Catholic position considers any interference in this process
immoral.
Han wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>>
>>> OK. I see your point, but IMO (BIG caveat) it is not valid. With
>>> the ACA, the US has effectively stated that medical care is a right,
>>> not a privilege, while insisting care should be paid for. That
>>> medical care encompasses all kinds of care, including birth control.
>>> To exclude birth control is not logical. This does not force the
>>> use of birth control onto anyone, just like you're perfectly free to
>>> refuse dialysis or a bypass.
>>
>> Birth Control is NOT medical care. As a matter of fact, birth control
>> is designed to INTERFERE with normal bodily functions. It is in the
>> same category as cosmetic surgery, tanning, Lasik surgery, and other
>> things that mess with a body but are not necessary for proper bodily
>> functions.
>>
>> On the contrary, Viagra is not covered by insurance. The purpose of
>> Viagra is to RESTORE a natural bodily function.
>>
>> Go figure.
>
> I thought you were on a host of medications. ALL of them are poisons
> that interfere with natural bodily functions, including the aspirin
> you might be taking to control your prostaglandin production.
You thought wrong. I'm NOT on a "host of medications."