Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantScaredy: Since this is in the Hobby Lobby thread, can we recast or reframe this narrative in terms of “positive rights” and “negative rights”, with the US Government as God/Organized Religion?
In other words, “Thou shalt purchase contraception, or there will be consequences!” (Which, in the final analysis, is very real, as the US Government holds a monopoly on its ability to use coercion and violence to enforce its will, akin to the God of the Old Testament.)
How does the argument play then? You know, when someone points out that we’re actually talking about negative rights versus positive rights here, and the ability of the government to coerce a private citizen against their will or beliefs.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Hobie]I dunno. Call them whatever you want, but I think the Murrietta situation quite accurately represents the feeling of the vast majority of legal immigrants and natural born Americans. Be nice if more of those folks voted.
It’s like a stranger walking in your front door sitting down to dinner curling up on your couch and saying, “whats for breakfast?” Just because they are here doesn’t make it right. or legal, ahem.[/quote]
what would Jesus do…[/quote]
Loaves and fishes, baby!
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=scaredyclassic]I guess what I believe is a variation on the golden rule posited by John Rawls called the veil of ignorance, which involves doing unto others as you’d wish to be treated without knowing who or where you’d be in society before deciding on a rule or course of action.
While this might sometimes appear unprincipled or like moral relativism it is actually really just dealing with others in a fair way …
If you know your exact interests before deciding on a rule your position will necessarily be only to your own advantage ptobably[/quote]
I was more a fan of Lou Rawls.[/quote]
Both were very very smooth.[/quote]
I was too young for most of it, but I really miss the 1970s.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]I guess what I believe is a variation on the golden rule posited by John Rawls called the veil of ignorance, which involves doing unto others as you’d wish to be treated without knowing who or where you’d be in society before deciding on a rule or course of action.
While this might sometimes appear unprincipled or like moral relativism it is actually really just dealing with others in a fair way …
If you know your exact interests before deciding on a rule your position will necessarily be only to your own advantage ptobably[/quote]
I was more a fan of Lou Rawls.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]Prayer[/quote]
Yeah, sorry. That was pretty much a non-starter in Catholic school, too.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]St. Priapus church was founded about 30 years ago in n. America and involves phallus worship. Mainly gay following centered in SF. Hopefully they’ll have an issue in court soon. Also BHUTAN seems to be invested in phallus worship. Maybe they can take charge of some decision making regarding your dick if you happen to be employed by them.
Penis cancer. Denied
Viagra. Approved?[/quote]Speaking of Viagra and priapism, how would you deal with an erection lasting longer than four hours?
Religiously speaking, of course.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=scaredyclassic]If you had that weird condition where your testicles swelled up to 50 lbs and I worshipped at a religion that venerated male genitals I’d let you get your damn testicle surgery even if I thought it were morally wrong.
Cause they’re your testicles.[/quote]
Scaredy: Thank you. You just made my point for me! Yes, they’re MINE, so what I choose to do with them is my business and everyone else, including the government, can fuck off.[/quote]
Except if you work for my alter ego, the pen is cult. I’ll pay you $10.00 an hour but your balls are mine.[/quote]
Scaredy: Sorry, dude, I’m married. My balls belong to someone else entirely.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I also believe that the Democratic Party uses this as an issue to pander for votes. [/quote]I guess you could call it pandering. If pandering is using very real issue position differences in order to win elections. I wouldn’t.[/quote]
SK: Aw, c’mon! My point about pandering had NO validity?
And said while a corporatist shill, and panderer, like Hillary waits in the wings?[/quote]
No, I don’t think it’s pandering. There is lots of pandering that goes on in most elections. And I have no doubt that Clinton is one of the true masters. (Though I think calling her a corporate shill isn’t accurate. She and her husband ARE the third way. That would be like calling Rand Paul a shill for his type of libertarianism.) I don’t think this issue is one of them. Particularly as compared to say…voting restrictions.[/quote]
SK: Have you heard of Teneo? How about Doug Band, President of Teneo? If you do some fairly cursory research, you’ll find some very interesting relationships, including some conflicts of interest that were so severe between the Clinton Foundation and Teneo that Bill Clinton was forced into a very public mea culpa. Both Teneo (which bills itself as a corporate strategy firm) and the Clinton Foundation share quite a few Fortune 500 clients, nearly all of which were steered to Teneo through Doug Band’s personal relationship with Bill and Hillary, so I think painting Hillary as a corporatist is completely fair.
As far as the Clinton Foundation being the third way, that’s open to interpretation. As with anything else, follow the money.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I also believe that the Democratic Party uses this as an issue to pander for votes. [/quote]I guess you could call it pandering. If pandering is using very real issue position differences in order to win elections. I wouldn’t.[/quote]
SK: Aw, c’mon! My point about pandering had NO validity?
And said while a corporatist shill, and panderer, like Hillary waits in the wings?
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
As to the “War on Women”: Are we discussing the actual war on women, or the vote-getting scheme as practiced by the Democratic Party?[/quote]The actual one. Whereby more anti-abortion laws were enacted in the last 3 years than had been enacted in the previous 10 years combined. And that was only through last year. The harshest restrictions have been passed this year. And more recently, the attack on contraceptives. But only contraceptives for women. A third of women in this country live in counties without abortion providers. A dozen states have only have a small handful of providers in the entire state. Unless it’s changed recently, Kansas has 1. For the entire state, due to legal restrictions. It’s a real thing, not an imaginary one.[/quote]
SK: I never said it was imaginary, hence my use of the word “notional” and quotation marks. I very much believe that there is a war on women, just as I believe, and have argued, that there is a war on the poor and less fortunate.
I also believe that the Democratic Party uses this as an issue to pander for votes. Not saying that the Republican Party doesn’t pander as well, just that this isn’t their issue.
As I said to Scaredy: I don’t have an ax to grind here, I was simply pointing out that I felt there were flaws in his argument. Much of the reportage surrounding this decision has been fairly breathless and somewhat at odds with the facts. Given this is an election year, one might suspect that there is a point to that approach.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]It’s cheaper for most people to opt for bankruptcy than buy catastrophic ins. Not to mention the people who can’t get the catastrophic insurance due to preexisting conditions.
In terms of running roughshod over u it doesn’t seem tthat much more oppressive than car ins. Given how mandatory car ownership is around here.[/quote]
Scaredy: You do realize that 35 states ran high risk pools prior to ACA, correct? And, of the 15 that didn’t, several of those were guaranteed issue states, which means that they were compelled to cover.
As a risk pooling mechanism, insurance excels. As a payment system, not so much.
I have no issue with car insurance, as this is a risk pooling system.
I do have an issue with compulsory health insurance, as there are far better alternatives out there.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]I don’t know. Maybe it is awful to have you not have catastrophic ins. I’m sorry. If I had to balance it against preexisting conditions being covered, and I had to decide how I Wang the system to be without knowing in advance which class I’d fall into I think I’d want a larger more inclusive ins. Pool.
Maybe that “COLLECTIVIST BULLSHIT” is another way of saying I’d prefer to see us care for one another. As a matter of principle. Not that Obama care does thst. But it’s an impulse that doesn’t seem evil to me.[/quote]
Scaredy: Except that I never once argued the contrary. Yes, we have an obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves. I just don’t think the government should be in that business. Stated more specifically: I don’t think the government should be in that business the way the government does it now.
The US Government believes that simply throwing huge amounts of money at a problem is the solution to everything from foreign policy to urban blight.
It clearly doesn’t work, and it hasn’t worked since roughly 1965. You don’t bring a sledgehammer to hunt ants.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]If you had that weird condition where your testicles swelled up to 50 lbs and I worshipped at a religion that venerated male genitals I’d let you get your damn testicle surgery even if I thought it were morally wrong.
Cause they’re your testicles.[/quote]
Scaredy: Thank you. You just made my point for me! Yes, they’re MINE, so what I choose to do with them is my business and everyone else, including the government, can fuck off.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Scaredy: So, if I understand this correctly, because Hobby Lobby invests in those pharma companies that make the products they’re complaining about, what? They’re hypocrites? I’m guessing those selfsame pharma companies make a wide variety of products beyond just those cited, correct? Making that argument risible and a red herring.
Beyond that, Hobby Lobby had no issue with 16 of the 20 birth control products listed, just those four considered abortifacients. So, they’re not really attacking a woman’s right to economic participation, as per Ginsberg, are they?
This is cheap, partisan rhetoric to gin up the Democratic base and continue the notional “War on Women”, which at this point is just a war on common sense and, you know, facts.[/quote]
It IS hypocritical. They claim that can’t be part of paying for those 4 birth control devices because they claim (incorrectly) that those products lead to abortions. And then they invest in companies who make abortion products. How is that not hypocritical?
Do you really believe that there is no war on women?[/quote]
SK: I never said it wasn’t hypocritical. What I said was that I found comparing investment in a pharma company to investment in South Africa during apartheid to be something of a false equivalence.
As to the “War on Women”: Are we discussing the actual war on women, or the vote-getting scheme as practiced by the Democratic Party?
-
AuthorPosts