@SCOTUSblog
-
FINE, I DON'T LIKE YOU ANYMORE.
-
FINE, I DON'T LIKE YOU ANYMORE.
holy balls I actually caused someone to do something on the internet.
I should have picked a much more profitable demand.
-
-
 * Arantor writes up a $1.75 donation to PETA in @ben_lubar's name.
Filed under: I assume different colours are a barrier to reading.
-
PETA
People Eating Tasty Animals? (That's all I can read that as now, since I first saw it...)
-
@Arantor said:
PETA
People Eating Tasty Animals? (That's all I can read that as now, since I first saw it...)
People for the Ethical Treatment of @Arantor
-
-
Do you object to compulsion in terms of federal overreach vs. states' rights, or just the idea of being forced to buy a product?
States' rights has nothing to do with it. As unfashionable as it is to say, Enumberable Powers, baby!
Filed under: Uninsured motorists are a hazard. A moral hazard.
Yes, I think there are compelling public interests in having car insurance for drivers. But I can't see how the Feds could do this without ignoring the Constitution (not that this is a huge burden any more).
-
I believe the quote you're looking for there is "I don't give a tuppenny fuck about your moral conundrum, you meat-headed shit-sack"... too much?
-
Unless it's adblockers. That's important.
-
Here's the problem.
The government mandated a form of insurance that covers anything more than catastrophic care.
By mandating coverage of day to day health care, we'll get into all kinds of junk like this over and over again. Because government has basically used health care as an argument to control another form of the private sector.
Honestly, companies covering people is a benefit. Why it is now a mandate is beyond me.
I can accept an argument that catastrophic coverage (necessary for keeping a person with catastrophic health care costs from bankrupting them and preventing them from being productive) is a good thing for government to care about.
However, covering minor costs of contraceptives is not health care. If you want to eat at a restaurant, you have to pay for it. It's an option. Food is a necessity, but $50 steak is not. Therefore sex is not a necessity.
Lack of sex doesn't make you unproductive. It doesn't break a rib, or cause cancer. And since you choose to have sex, I don't see the need to include it in coverage.
There are no reproductive rights. No one has a RIGHT to have or not have a child. People need to go read the constitution.
-
Yes, I think there are compelling public interests in having car insurance for drivers. But I can't see how the Feds could do this without ignoring the Constitution (not that this is a huge burden any more).
Actually, this goes back to what I said last post.
Existing is a basic human right. Driving is not.
Therefore, government can mandate driver's insurance, because you are driving on public roads. (Note: you can drive on your land all you want without insurance).
However, mandating health insurance, does not make sense. The comparable argument would be like: Government owns your life and it is public, therefore existing requires health insurance.
-
Honestly, companies covering people is a benefit. Why it is now a mandate is beyond me.
Because it can be used as a political platform. Nothing more.
-
Lack of sex doesn't make you unproductive.
Actually, that's been proven false. I'll try to find the article when I'm not on a work computer, but productivity does fade. However, it's not a complete lack, it's having it, then removing it.
-
I'm sorry.
To clarify.
Lack of sex doesn't affect your productivity comparably to not having a working heart.
It should not be mandated coverage.
-
-
Because welfare is all about bleeding hearts wanting to "practice charity" with anyone else's money other than their own. To get that satisfaction of having "done a good deed" without lifting a hand.
It's disgusting.
Scrooge put it well. (paraphrased) "Why should I donate? I pay my taxes? I have to support those organizations. That should be enough."
-
Because welfare is all about bleeding hearts wanting to "practice charity" with anyone else's money other than their own. To get that satisfaction of having "done a good deed" without lifting a hand.
It's actually much worse than that. In the minds of people who favor that sort of thing, intent is everything. If the actual results aren't as expected, they never question whether the policies they advocate really work. Instead they will supply a scapegoat or say that their policies weren't taken far enough. So "done a good deed" definitely belongs in quotes because in many cases the reality is completely the opposite.
-
-
This post is deleted!
-
I would prefer to make the comparison where 1861 was actual slavery supported by Democrats, whereas today welfare is a horrifying silent form of slavery supported by Democrats.
Certain civil right's activists like to point out that today's racism is racism in hiding.
I'd like to point out that today's welfare is just slavery in hiding.
Isn't also odd that all the people concerned about protected certain women's rights haven't practiced those rights. However, if a certain population practiced those rights, they'd be easier to control.
I know, I know. Tin foil hat stuff.
But at least the welfare keeping poor people poor is a reality.
It only raises my suspicion.
-
However, mandating purchasing private health insurance, does not make sense.
FTFY. If they're going to mandate everyone have "health insurance", then they should define a set of things that are peoples' rights to have as far as medical care goes and then pay for it from taxes. Not legally require you to line the pockets of insurance company CEOs whose entire point of existence is to make money by charging you more than they need.
-
Lack of sex doesn't make you unproductive. It doesn't break a rib, or cause cancer. And since you choose to have sex, I don't see the need to include it in coverage.
If people always acted rationally, there wouldn't be a need for this thread at all. Since they don't, it's cheaper to offer free contraceptives than to deal with more unwanted children. They won't solve all problems (again, people are irrational), but it's very likely that they will offset the cost several times over.
-
deal with more unwanted children.
You know. I can't really respond to anything else. It's just so sad.
Not acting rationally isn't the worst of it. They aren't even acting as humans, preferring to satiate the base carnal instincts without any sense of responsibility for their actions. And preferring to resolve the consequences by blaming everyone else, and terminating life.
I'm sorry, any justification for this won't have the time of day with me. Not because I can't defend my position, but because my heart just can't take it anymore.
Fine, let us hand ourselves over to this selfishness. I have to wonder how big a part of our souls we are sacrificing.
For me, it's more telling that we are so excruciatingly examining at what point we want to believe life begins, than any argument for any side.
-
Also, this.
Despite being at stallman.org, I clicked. The first sentence did not disappoint.
@Richard Stallman said:
I decided not to have children
And I decided not to travel through time and kill Hitler.
-
If people always acted rationally, there wouldn't be a need for this thread at all. Since they don't, it's cheaper to offer free contraceptives than to deal with more unwanted children.
Yeah, but say it out loud, and you'll be deemed a social Darwinist.
Most people shouldn't have kids, and those who should are usually the ones that choose not to (well, Stallman is an edge case).
You know. I can't really respond to anything else. It's just so sad.
Yeah, well, life sucks.
Not acting rationally isn't the worst of it. They aren't even acting as humans, preferring to satiate the base carnal instincts without any sense of responsibility for their actions. And preferring to resolve the consequences by blaming everyone else, and terminating life.
IT'S NOT TERMINATING LIFE FOR FUCK'S SAKE. And would you really prefer people to act like savage animals, fucking around and having tens of kids, which would then either go around dying from starvation, or end up being the country's dependant?
Fine, let us hand ourselves over to this selfishness.
People are selfish by instinct. They just sometimes prefer to cover their eyes and ears about it.
-
IT'S NOT TERMINATING LIFE FOR FUCK'S SAKE.
I'm not actually thinking about contraceptives when I mentioned that. I've used birth control.
I was more targeting the other extreme. I can't imagine anyone can logically look at something like partial birth abortion, and agree with it.
I was pointing out how we agonize over where life begins, rather than saying, let's just keep a safe distance from even potentially terminating "life". That's what is disappointing me. We have the technology to support prematures. And we have a lineup of people waiting to adopt. Why do we have lobbyists so insistent on a certain way to solve the problem.
-
We have the technology to support prematures. And we have a lineup of people waiting to adopt. Why do we have lobbyists so insistent on a certain way to solve the problem.
Call us back when you become a 15-year-old girl being raped and getting pregnant. When you're going to be the one dealing with scrutiny, with people pointing fingers at you and calling you a whore, with whatever pregnancy does to a 15-year-old girl.
Or when you become a kid being born with numerous birth defects, because your mother got pregnant when she was 40. When you end up being dependent on the very technology you mention to not expire in a pile of feces and blood.
Then maybe, just maybe, you can dictate what people should or should not do.
-
As for the 15 year old girl. All of that you mentioned is the fault of the people who mistreat her. Not a fetus.
And I agree, we should hold society accountable for being so judgemental.
But those are two very different issues.
Maybe you've been a 15-year old raped girl. I can't know that. However, unless you have, I don't see how mentioning that gives you the platform to disregard my criticism.
I could say to Wikileaks, unless you've been a soldier in Iraq, you can't criticize the soldier for hurting innocents.
Yes, I can criticize situations I haven't experienced.
How about the mothers who keep their "defected" kids. Kids that grow up to live happy lives regardless of their limitations. Are you suggesting these women are somehow flawed themselves? Because they face that criticism. From testimony, one was told she was evil for not aborting her blind child. I wonder how blind people feel about that.
No, all these justifications are still selfish. Emotion clouds the issue, but the logical truth is still black and white.
I intend to support these women who choose life, because from their experiences, they haven't been given a choice. They've been tortured for not making the choice that others expected them to. And I think that is by far more disgusting than your examples.
I won't be responding to further comment. We've cluttered up this topic enough as is.
-
Call us back when you become a 15-year-old girl being raped and getting pregnant.
Just because you can rationalize murder doesn't mean that we all can.
-
All of that you mentioned is the fault of the people who mistreat her. Not a fetus.
Oh, of course it is. I wholeheartedly agree. But it is how it is, and maybe not everybody in that situation would be able to just ignore the mistreatment and tell themselves it's the others' fault.
Maybe you've been a 15-year old raped girl. I can't know that. However, unless you have, I don't see how mentioning that gives you the platform to disregard my criticism.
No, I haven't. I've known one, though she was younger than that. And trust me, if you told her to just bear her cross, because it's the right thing to do, she'd punch you in the face. And then I would.
I could say to Wikileaks, unless you've been a soldier in Iraq, you can't criticize the soldier for hurting innocents.
Yes, I can criticize situations I haven't experienced.
Sure, you can. I assume you live in a free country. You have, however, no fucking right to force your judgement upon others and dictate what they should do.
How about the mothers who keep their "defected" kids. Kids that grow up to live happy lives regardless of their limitations.
Yeah... happy lives.
Are you suggesting these women are somehow flawed themselves? Because they face that criticism. From testimony, one was told she was evil for not aborting her blind child. I wonder how blind people feel about that.
Oh. A woman putting her child - at this point, a certainly fully developed human being who can feel just like you and me - into the life of misery and disability is somehow doing good. In this case, it was a blind child - put this case into Google Translate and tell me you'd say, in all certainity (as you claim it's black and white), that it was a good decision and the right thing to do.
I intend to support these women who choose life, because from their experiences, they haven't been given a choice. They've been tortured for not making the choice that others expected them to. And I think that is by far more disgusting than your examples.
TDEMSYR. Do you live in China, or some other dictator-ruled country where women are forced to have an abortion? Last time I checked, nobody could make you abort your pregnancy. Those women made a choice, and yes, it wasn't the one others expected them to do - after all, we wouldn't expect somebody to condemn another human being into life of misery just because "it's the right thing to do".
But they can still do it. And suffer no consequences, aside from having pointed out that they, willingly and consciously, caused evil. Because that's what it is, and you won't convince me otherwise.
Just because you can rationalize murder doesn't mean that we all can.
Oh, I'm glad we solved that. And to think so many people have spent so many hours having so many debates about when life begins, what life is, and what is the right choice.
Just because you believe it's murder and should be rationalized, doesn't mean we all do.
-
No, I haven't. I've known one, though she was younger than that. And trust me, if you told her to just bear her cross, because it's the right thing to do, she'd punch you in the face. And then I would.
Call me and I will too.
-
Just because you believe it's murder and should be rationalized, doesn't mean we all do.
I'm not stopping you from being wrong. But I wasn't the one using bold caps to say stupid shit, now was I?
PARAMETERIZED SQL IS A WASTE OF TIME
Filed Under: Guess I ruined that
-
Actually, no, I can't even make that comparison with a straight face, 2 of those are actually science and one is philosophy.
-
Existing is a basic human right. Driving is not.
Therefore, government can mandate driver's insurance, because you are driving on public roads. (Note: you can drive on your land all you want without insurance).
However, mandating health insurance, does not make sense. The comparable argument would be like: Government owns your life and it is public, therefore existing requires health insurance.
The purpose of the mandate is to reduce adverse selection in insurance markets. If insurance is not mandatory, the only ones who will buy it will be the ones who think they need it most (who will in turn be the most likely to file a claim). To serve these higher-risk patients, the insurer needs to increase their premiums, which creates a vicious cycle, thinning out the revenue pool and increasing the risk profile.
We kind of have a problem in the US in that people can go to an emergency room and get medical treatment without having insurance. Knowing that, people who can't afford insurance have an incentive not to purchase a policy: "Eh, if I get sick, they got me covered." A promise of expensive emergency care to anyone who needs it without a sure way to recoup the costs is a recipe for insolvency. So if you want to run a health care system that tries to be solvent or even profitable, you only have a couple options:
- Require insurance to receive any care. No card? Get out. Only people who can afford insurance and make the rational Homo Economicus judgment to buy a policy will be able to receive care. In a perfectly rational world, this approach might work, but the rationality of humans has been called into question earlier in this thread...
- Force everyone to purchase a policy. Even young, healthy patients will be paying into the system, and their lower risk would offset the higher risks of people who would NEED health insurance under the present system.
Option #2 has several other important benefits, such as increasing access to preventive care (typically being much less expensive than emergency care). The end result is in theory* more efficient in terms of patients paying their due, the value of medical services rendered per dollar spent and the pooled risk of all the insured.
*Health care in the US is a complex beast with its thousands of billing codes and malpractice law and all. That's a much less exciting avenue of discussion (although an exciting avenue of pedantic dickweedery) and doesn't really contribute to or detract from the rationale for compulsory insurance.
-
Actually, no, I can't even make that comparison with a straight face, 2 of those are actually science and one is philosophy.
I was very confused and then the post deleted itself and replaced it with this and now I'm still confused but for a different reason.
-
I was very confused and then the post deleted itself and replaced it with this and now I'm still confused but for a different reason.
It's okay, it was just a poor poke at the general lack of belief in science by the right-wing public , who then try to use science to back their arguments when they find a random published study that actually agrees with them.It doesn't fit here, because this forum isn't going to be full of those type of anti-science evolution/etc deniers.
-
Did you get that from Hannity's website? Or Limbaugh's?
The whole point being made on the left side of that cartoon is just completely fucking wrong. Yes, Democrats at one time were predominately for slavery, and lots of Democrats voted against civil rights legislation. The point you are missing, and what really makes it honest is that those who did referred to themselves as "Dixiecrats". Democrats from the fucking south. So, it really was not Democrats who voted this way, it was wealthy southern landowners...who are now predominately fucking Republican.
Jesus fuck, I am extremely centrist. I think both parties fucking suck and even I know that. Political discussions do nothing but devolve in to vitriol and misinformation.
-
@Intercourse said:
Jesus fuck, I am extremely centrist.
Since you appear to be talking about American politics, that would make you "right wing".@Intercourse said:
I think both parties fucking suck
That doesn't make you centrist, that makes you non-hallucinating.@Intercourse said:
and even I know that.
Even you know that you think something? I'd think you of all people would know when you thought something.
-
Yes, that graphic is pretty dumb. It's not even worth arguing, since anyone that posts it believing that the 2 sides have any relevance has already been brainwashed and is not going to be swayed.
-
Since you appear to be talking about American politics, that would make you "right wing".
Right wing to who?
To a Canadian an American "centrist" is a right-wing nutjob
To the Tea Party, being centrist makes you a bleeding-heart liberal.
-
Right wing to who?
I assumed "centrists" in American politics referred to that pixel between the red circle and the blue circle.
-
I've found it extremely hard to back anyone in American politics. Even the standby of electing different parties to control different sections of the government to force a stalemate on major topics is starting to get annoying.
The number one problem is that everything revolves around money. At some point, regardless of party, someone's pockets are getting lined. And they're not my pockets, so fuck that.
Number two I'm starting to think is modern medicine. All these antiquated ideas by 80yr old codgers that still think blacks and women shouldn't be allowed to vote would have died off long ago if they had just fucking died already. Then we wouldn't still be battling the same civil rights movements under different names, or the same old prohibition with different drug/drinks.
-
I assumed "centrists" in American politics referred to that pixel between the red circle and the blue circle.
I assumed that since he said "centrist" he meant truly centrist and not specifically "American Centrist", regardless of whether he was talking about American politics. I talk about American politics and consider myself centrist... ish. Imagine if your grid were a space-gravity grid with a black hole in the center. I'd say my views are somewhere down at the bottom point of the infinite gravitional well in comparison to the rest of the mess in that grid.
-
The number one problem is that everything revolves around money.
That's been a problem since at least the ancient Greeks. It seems like the only parameter in that equation that can be tweaked is "to what extent."Number two I'm starting to think is modern medicine. All these antiquated ideas by 80yr old codgers that still think blacks and women shouldn't be allowed to vote would have died off long ago if they had just fucking died already. Then we wouldn't still be battling the same civil rights movements under different names, or the same old prohibition with different drug/drinks.
History moves at the speed of the hearse.
-
I did not read everything, because infinite scrolling is a barrier to reading, but here is my opinion on this stupid fucking decision by the SCOTUS:
Our laws are not a la carte. You do not get to pick and choose because you have philosophical or ideological differences with them. Hobby Lobby can fuck off if they think so, but apparently they won this one. If you enjoy all the benefits that the corporate veil provides you, then it should also protect your fucking religion on the other side of it.
I do not agree with a lot of the ACA, but as of right now it is the law of the land. The SCOTUS opened up a gigantic fucking can of worms with this one. Does this mean that corporations owned by Jehovah's witnesses can refuse to pay for insurance that covers blood transfusions? Can Scientologists refuse to pay for insurance that covers psychiatric treatment and medications? Can Christian Scientists refuse to pay for anything except prayer? Can Muslims refuse to pay for insurance that covers any medication that was derived from pigs of shellfish (that is a LOT of them).
Citizens United is where all of this shit started. If corporations are people, then perhaps corporate charters should only last as long as the average human lifespan? After that, they should die. Those who enjoy the benefits of the corporate veil should also look at it as shielding their religion. If they wish to give up the corporate veil, then it would actually be their money and they may be able to claim that their religious beliefs are being infringed upon.
-
I would say that I am neither right nor left, but much more Libertarian than Authoritarian. My political views are that I want the government to leave myself and others the hell alone and that we should always err on the side of liberty.
-
Even you know that you think something? I'd think you of all people would know when you thought something.
...and even I know that the graphic is complete bullshit.
I forgot that I am in the company of pedants. :) I would have remembered that, but the lack of pagination here makes topics rather difficult to read all the way through. It would be better if it were broken up in to bite size chunks...maybe 10 posts a chunk?
-
@Intercourse said:
maybe 10 posts a chunk
They have a summary button, but unless it just lists every participant on this topic followed by "rants on ideologically about things you have no hope to sway their opinion on" then it's a useless summary.
Filed Under: yea me too!
-
I enjoy reading these things though. Well, I guess I like it, I don't know sometimes. It can be downright scary to consider that other people actually think some of the things that get said. Sometimes I wonder if I'd just rather not know, and wallow in ignorant bliss.
But then I realize that's probably exactly what the other guy is thinking too, so it's cool.
