@SCOTUSblog
-
That's incorrect. The employee doesn't pay for the pill. The government does.
What you're quoting there was in response to a hypothetical question.
-
-
It doesn't matter that we live in the most peaceful era of humanity ever.
Thank you Religion of Peace!
-
forcing an atheist company to install prayer rooms in all its stores to accommodate their Christian employees.
That would probably work, sadly. Because it would be interpreted as the company acting against their religious freedom. Atheism is not a religion so it's fine the other way.
Abortion pills, however, only have one use, and that's to kill a fetus.
So the morning after pill can't kill a fetus, because it's not a fetus yet. Therefore, not abortion, by that definition, if it was your definition. /pedantic dickweed
And some of us aren't even in America and just laugh at all the politics anyway.
+1
Thank you Religion of Peace!
I know what your jab is directed at, but globally looking, he's right. Now, the fact that the USA can't stop waging war is a different point.
-
I know what your jab is directed at, but globally looking, he's right.
Yes, I know.
Now, the fact that the USA can't stop waging war is a different point.
If the rest of you fuckers would just behave.
-
So the morning after pill can't kill a fetus, because it's not a fetus yet. Therefore, not abortion, by that definition, if it was your definition. /pedantic dickweed
Hence why the "life begins at conception" debate is so heated. There's really no argument against it, other than for confirming a separate belief.
-
It's a fact that human life begins with the embryo, which is what people mean by "at conception." The fetus thing was just a pedantic dickweed fail by a local poster.
Some people think that the human life of an embryo (or even a fetus) isn't worth anything, intrinsically, however.
-
Abortion is a subset of birth control, so saying the case was about birth control when it was actually about a much smaller subset, is inaccurate.
Not so much inaccurate. None of the articles say "ALL BIRTH CONTROL BANNED". Half those headlines don't even tell you which side of the fence hobby lobby was on, so it's hard to get all uppity about bias when you don't even know what the bias is towards!The word you're looking for is "specific". You wanted the headlines to be more specific, because possibly you feel that the right-wing position is so tenuous that it has to come with a thousands disclaimers so people don't just laugh at it. Sorry, but the topic at hand is a form of birth control. The article isn't going to try to explain the entire topic in the headline, that's the point of the article.
-
None of the articles say "ALL BIRTH CONTROL BANNED".
They mostly just insinuate that. Or something similar with respect to motives.
Sorry, but the topic at hand is a form of birth control.
Not in the Court case, it wasn't. For leftists, this is largely like the saying about lawyers:
@Alan Dershowitz said:
If the facts are on your side, Dershowitz says, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.
Changing the subject to birth control is them pounding the table.
-
Changing the subject to birth control is them pounding the table.
I see, and wanting the headlines changed to say "Abortion" instead is not the right wing doing the exact same thing? Because, "subset of the topic" and all, you know?
-
Because if you read the article, here are their suggested "truthful" headlines:
The Hill: Supreme Court rejects Obama, limits abortion mandate
Politico: SCOTUS sides with Hobby Lobby on abortion
New York Times: Supreme Court Rejects Abortion Mandate for Some Corporations
It's just the same thing in the other direction. It's hard to believe a person actually wrote that article with a straight face. I mean, clearly Obama wants to MANDATE ABORTION FOR ALL AMIRITE?!
-
Atheism is not a religion
Given that it is afforded the same constitutional protections as other religions in the US, it is legally considered a religion. They even have churches which are awarded tax free status, the same as religious churches. It may not be theistic, but is still a "religion"
-
I see, and wanting the headlines changed to say "Abortion" instead is not the right wing doing the exact same thing? Because, "subset of the topic" and all, you know?
The headline should reflect the article. If the article is whining about birth control or abortion with respect to this case, it's probably a shit article to begin with, as far as discussing the case itself. Those are things that may or may not deserve to be discussed in an article on their own.
-
Given that it is afforded the same constitutional protections as other religions in the US, it is legally considered a religion.
While I disagree I won't complain about any rights given so eh, I'll roll with it, even technically wrong.
They even have churches
Crap, now I have to stand against abortion wholeheartedly. I mean, where are all those babies that have to be eaten during service come from?
-
I mean, clearly Obama wants to MANDATE ABORTION FOR ALL AMIRITE?!
More or less.
SCOTUS sides with Hobby Lobby
This is clearly good, since that's what happened in the case, though the "on abortion" part is wrong.
Supreme Court Rejects Abortion Mandate for Some Corporations
That's not unreasonable, though I think it's important to note that the abortion part is really accidental and not essential to the case and the decision's reasoning.
Supreme Court rejects Obama,
This is not terrible. Here's why: The mandate at issue wasn't in the legislation, it was something put into a regulation by HHS. Also interesting to note: During negotiations over the original legislation, Obama promised he would sign an executive order saying HHS couldn't do this, and then...didn't. So, really, the legal problem here was the Adminstration's overreach, and not conflicting statutes.
TRWTF is how Congress has abdicated so much of its power to the Executive.
-
While I disagree I won't complain about any rights given so eh, I'll roll with it, even technically wrong.
Atheism is a religious belief. I'm not sure why that's controversial.
-
Atheism != science
-
The article isn't going to try to explain the entire topic in the headline, that's the point of the article.
The problem is, news standards are so poor these days, that the article rarely does that.
-
Atheism is a religious belief. I'm not sure why that's controversial.
Atheists aren't generally as smart as us agnostics.[/smug]
-
Atheism is a religious belief. I'm not sure why that's controversial.
Correct. But then again, druids are atheists as well (AFAIK). So are scientologists.
Lack of an attribute can't define a group well enough. Now, I know we're all on the same page when we use the word atheist in our conversation, we actually mean a sceptic or naturalistic atheist, whichever you prefer, but it still isn't a cohesive definition.
Also, a religious belief doesn't preclude an organised religion. Or lack thereof.
-
I think that the term that most of you are looking for is "contra-implantation"
-
Atheists aren't generally as smart as us agnostics.[/smug]
That definition needs fixing, now. Agnosticism means "I can't prove" which doesn't exclude personal belief. Regarding theism you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
-
But then again, druids are atheists as well (AFAIK)
Did they approve the TDEMSYR badge yet?
-
See, your editted down headlines aren't so bad.
Too bad that's not what the right-wing rags want - as clearly evidenced by @mott555's link, which just goes to show that they're as bad as the very thing they complain about.
-
That definition needs fixing, now. Agnosticism means "I can't prove" which doesn't exclude personal belief. Regarding theism you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
Apatheism is the one true agnosticism.
-
Agnosticism means "I can't prove" which doesn't exclude personal belief.
It doesn't mean "can't prove." Because then it wouldn't mean anything, since no one can prove their religious beliefs are true. It means you aren't sure.
-
And nihilists are just crazy.
Filed Under:They believe in nothzing!
-
Sure. I never claimed differently.
-
@antiquarian I stand corrected. Got them missed up with someone else then. What I meant is there are worshippers of nature but without actual gods. Which are apparently not druids. Bah, I CBA to google that shit!
Apatheism is the one true agnosticism.
Didn't hear about that one before. Why the fuck am I learning stuff on TDWTF? What's happening?
It doesn't mean "can't prove." Because then it wouldn't mean anything, since no one can prove their religious beliefs are true. It means you aren't sure.
You are correct. Brainfart.
Fuck, too much agreement again. Ummm... you all suck purple dildos?
-
-
And nihilists are just crazy.
Filed Under:They believe in nothzing!
They believe in marmots.
-
What I meant is there are worshippers of nature but without actual gods. Which are apparently not druids.
-
They mostly just insinuate that. Or something similar with respect to motives.
The caveat in paragraph number 19 is a phrase coined by Ben Goldacre which seeks to summarize the behaviour of journalists who make a striking claim in a headline in order to garner readership, expand on the claim in the headline in the first few paragraphs, but then either directly contradict the headline in a paragraph late on in the article or drop in a caveat so large that it renders the whole point of the article meaningless.
-
Except that doesn't really apply here. Well, mostly. The articles are generally internally consistent. It's only if you know anything about the subject that they're obviously bonkers.
-
Isn't pantheism the unshakeable belief of pan-fried bacon?
-
I've been baking my bacon lately. Much less labor intensive.
-
Deep frying is faster and also low labor, plus anything you do after it (like french fries) taste better.
-
But I can quickly set up a pound of bacon on two cookie sheets. My deep fryer can't handle that much at once.
The water method can make good bacon, but takes way too long.
-
Fair enough, plus you don't cause problems for others that way. Luckily when my fraternity house was doing this we didn't have an active member that kept kosher, halal, or vegetarian.
-
-
And nihilists are just crazy.
Filed Under:They believe in nothzing!
Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.
-
But they're not paying for a plan to offer them free guns to murder with (and by the way, GUNS != MURDER).
[size=40]CROWS == MURDER[/size]
-
Yes, I've seen Justified.
-
Frankly, it's bullshit that the Feds are allowed to enforce laws making us buy insurance, period, but this wasn't even decided as Constitutional issue, but applying laws that Congress previously passed.
Do you object to compulsion in terms of federal overreach vs. states' rights, or just the idea of being forced to buy a product?
Filed under: [Uninsured motorists are a hazard. A moral hazard.][1]
-
Do you object to compulsion in terms of federal overreach vs. states' rights
Definitely this,
being forced to buy a product
but this, too.
-
or just the idea of being forced to buy a product?
"I don't want to buy a seatbelt. Give me a car without one. It's just an added expense that gives me no benefit, since I will never have to stop quickly while driving."
-
Definitely this,
but this, too.
How do you feel about being forced to buy auto insurance, then?
Filed under: [I realize that that's done at the state level, and while there's no overt pressure to own a car, car ownership is more or less mandatory unless you live in a walkable/bikeable area or one that's well-served by public transportation. The idea of being compelled into purchasing an unwanted product is precedented, and I haven't really encountered any motorists who necessarily object to it, apart from the sixteen-year-old dudes who can barely pay for gas and just want a chariot for banging the hot girl du jour who wouldn't touch them with a ten foot barge pole. It's comforting on some level to know that it's illegal for the asshole who just rear-ended you not to have coverage.][1]
-
Here's a good article by an expat Brit.
It is a good article, whose author is well-spoken and appears grounded. Although he could just as easily have written the exact same article aimed at either the left-wing or right-wing side of almost any polarized political topic since the beginning of this millenium. Wouldn't have to change but a handful of the lines really, since most of it is boilerplate about the purpose of the Supreme Court. Though personally, I think he's deluding himself if he doesn't think that the judge's personal opinions ever cloud their judgement on these cases. Otherwise, why would both sides cry so much every time a Judge is appointed from the opposite party. The judge's personal opinion is kind of a big factor in both how they read the constitution and laws as written, as well as whether they think the constitution is a static or "living" document.
-
Also, in this case I think the ruling as given was perfectly fine. Private companies should be able to choose what they will provide their employee as benefits, just as the employees can choose to work for a place that does align with their views on healthcare or whatever other benefits they may want.
-
Things.
Aw jeez, you're killing my cred. Maybe I wanted that post to actually get read and possibly even mulled over by others; now it has no chance.
liked this.
Fetus - Wikipedia
