@SCOTUSblog
-
Uh - Senator Strom Thurmond very famously switched parties specifically because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Yes. And like you said, that's not the same as 100%.
There were more votes supporting civil rights by Democrats than Republicans, and exceedingly so in the North.
Yes, you're right in terms of absolute numbers (but then, there were more democrats to begin with). I was thinking of the proportion of total votes. Of course, at least some of those Republican votes against were due to perceived Constitutional conflicts, while at least some Democratic support (if nothing else from the President) was for political gain in spite of principle.
-
ATHEISM
a : a disbelief in the existence of deityThe difference is in "disbelief" versus "belief".
You do not need faith to not believe in things even though it takes faith to believe in them.Q: What do you believe?
Atheist: There is no god.QED
-
Q: What do you believe?
I don't believe anything....
You're putting words into our mouths in an attempt to make it fit your definition. Cute, but false.
-
I don't believe anything....
You're putting words into our mouths in an attempt to make it fit your definition. Cute, but false.No, I was talking about what an atheist believes. You appear to be in the agnostic camp.
-
My problem lies not with what we have now established to be special religious terminology for the beginning of "human life". If you want your own special phrase with its own special meaning, more power to you. But don't then re-define "abortion" to fit yourselves.
So, if I'm reading you right, the Supreme Court decided this case incorrectly because SQUIRREL!
-
while at least some Democratic support (if nothing else from the President) was for political gain in spite of principle.
Interesting opinion that is yet again against easily source-able information...According to Caro, it was ultimately Johnson's ability to convince republican leader Everett Dirksen to support the bill that brought the necessary republican votes to overcome the filibuster in March 1964. [Caro, Robert. "The Passage of Power". p465][ Schlesinger, Arthur Jr. (1978, 2002). Robert Kennedy And His Times. pp. 644–645] Johnson signed the revised and stronger bill into law on July 2, 1964.[ Schlesinger, Arthur Jr. (1978, 2002). Robert Kennedy And His Times. pp. 644–645] Legend has it that, as he put down his pen, Johnson told an aide, "We have lost the South for a generation", anticipating a coming backlash from Southern whites against Johnson's Democratic Party. Moreover, Richard Nixon politically counterattacked with the Southern Strategy where it would "secure" votes for the Republican Party by grabbing the advocates of segregation as well as most of the Southern Democrats - Risen, Clay (March 5, 2006). "How the South was won". The Boston Globe
Yes, you're right in terms of absolute numbers (but then, there were more democrats to begin with). I was thinking of the proportion of total votes.
Is that true? Might want to check those percentages again. Once accounting for the geographic differences that go behind straight party voting, More Democrats from the South in both % and # supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as well as more Democrats from the North than Northern Republicans. Of course, that wasn't hard in the south since not a single Southern Republican was in favor of the Act.
-
So, if I'm reading you right, the Supreme Court decided this case incorrectly because SQUIRREL!
Uh? I said they decided it correctly, but for the wrong reasons. Sorry, thanks for playing. You can see that I said that multiple times in this topic (if it weren't so hard to search Discourse anyway). You, Mott, PJH, and the rest of the rightwingers are the ones caught up in the need to have it labeled as a breakthrough against forced abortion.
-
You appear to be in the agnostic camp.
ORLY? You should have gone with agnostic on your first round, because at least one version of the definition of agnostic includes the word "believe":
ag·nos·tic
agˈnästik
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.That said, your entire argument is based on bending the definitions of terms to make it seem as though I have to "believe" something, I guess because it makes you uncomfortable that I don't need faith.
-
Uh? I said they decided it correctly, but for the wrong reasons. Sorry, thanks for playing.
Hmm...OK, I mostly remembered your discussion of news stories. I see you did say this:
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.
So, you've given a statement of principle, but haven't said anything that I can see about the legal merits of this opinion or about the actual decision. Which basically said that HHS did something contrary to existing law.
I agree with your principle, but I don't see how it relates to this case. I guess I also conflated your misrepresentation of things regarding the case with an incorrect conclusion about your view of the case...but then you haven't really given any indication that you understand what it was actually about, so....meh.
-
1. 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...
2. 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.Federal Government doesn't have the power.
While I can appreciate the simple math involved in your argument. Enforcement of this idea is not an enumerated power that the federal government has.
You can't just make a logical argument for something and enforce it in a law without having that power. As nice as that would be in a pure logical sense applied to an individual circumstance. Such a power would inevitably lead to extreme abuses in power.
This is the whole reason the constitution was written, to protect inalienable rights. If they really wanted to have a mandate for insurance enforced by the government, they'd have to amend the constitution to give them that power. Amending the constitution is a more serious act, and requires a greater proportion of votes.
This is the reason that SCOTUS had to "convince" itself that the mandate was a tax. Which put the democrats in an ironic position. They didn't want the mandate to be considered a tax because of all the negative PR that came with that reveal, but they wanted to win the case.
Insurance is just a cost bandaid.
If I were to be convinced of your argument, I'd still have to wonder why the coverage was so comprehensive. Why does it cover things like birth control? I understand there are social arguments to do so, and I'm not trying to argue them at this point. But the main complaint is that catastrophic care is costly to the system if healthy people aren't paying in to the system to offset the cost. Any coverage beyond catastrophic care is merely social engineering. We want them to get preventive care (which doesn't really do much, unless they test for every possible costly disease, and they still don't) so we add that coverage.
But besides that, it simply perpetuates the cost problem. Health care institutions take advantage of coverage and increase costs because they know insurance is going to pay. Insurance is going to pay, because they know they can raise premiums. Nothing in the law alleviates that, and we are back to square one. Even the measure that says that insurance has to show payout percentage of their premium means nothing, because insurance earns money on investing premiums. They can increase their premiums and just pay the hospital more.
It still doesn't account for the people that don't show ID at the hospital. We have plenty of illegal immigrants that won't buy into the system. This measure does nothing to offset that cost.
It gave access to more care
Actually more people lost their insurance and are considering paying the fine, than additional people that the law anticipated would gain coverage. Big corporations like McDonalds and Walmart are given a pass. It took away coverage from people working part-time. Yes, that's right, part-time employees, by law mind you, can no longer receive a corporate subsidized plan. This is to push them onto a public subsidized plan.
It was made to fail
The law as it stands is doing everything to make private access to insurance a big burden. It is making it harder for companies to cover employees, took away part-time employee coverage. Took away catastrophic only plans.
The whole goal of the law is to push people onto public subsidized plans. However, that's no sustainable. At the current rate of growth, it will fail, just like social security is failing.
They don't know what the hell they are doing
And that's my point.
Even if the arguments for the law are sound, the implementation is full of failure. Congress doesn't care about it working. They only care about it appearing to work, in the short term, until they can replace it with an even bigger system. When it fails, they'll just say that they didn't get to implement what they really wanted, that we can't go back to the way it was, and that the only solution is to move forward, into their even more fail of a system.
They point to Europe and show that it works. But the Europeans actually made public health care with the intent of it working. And even if it does work, it really doesn't.
All we've done it take away the success of health care from people that could pay, and put it in the hands of people with social power.
And that's socialism.
-
That said, your entire argument is based on bending the definitions of terms to make it seem as though I have to "believe" something, I guess because it makes you uncomfortable that I don't need faith.
I'm saying that any statement about god relies on faith. Including nonexistence. That seems pretty basic. I'm confused why you think it isn't.
-
Actually most statements rely on faith.
Do you have an electron microscope?
I guess, you'll just have to take everyone's word for it when they say atoms exist.
One key of science is that the experiments are repeatable. But I can't repeat them. I don't have the equipment to do so. I just have to take their word for it.
Now, there's a sufficient number of people agreeing on certain things, which gives me more confidence.
But the truth of the matter is that I have to have faith in what they are saying.
And even what that's all true. Our perceptions of reality lie to us. Matter of fact, there's more lies than truth.
-
I feel like everybody is arguing over the wrong thing really... this isn't about what people should believe. And some of you are taking your bigotry against Christianity and theism awfully far in your demands that they must agree with you because scientific theory.
This is not about a belief being correct or not (and for the most part, this couldn't proven anyways). This is about whether the government can force you do something against your beliefs just because you employ people. And no, Hobby Lobby is not ditching their beliefs on their employees, just simply refusing to pay for something that the employees can still pay for on their own (and since they pay significantly more than other retailers, the employees can surely do so on their own)
-
I'm saying that any statement about god relies on faith. Including nonexistence. That seems pretty basic. I'm confused why you think it isn't.
Actually most statements rely on faith.
If you want to argue that the scientific method requires "faith" then you are arguing the wrong definition of faith as it pertains to this discussion of religion.
Yes, I have faith1 in the scientific method. I do not have faith2 that there is no god.
faith
fāTH
noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
-
Awfully ironic that atheism and agnosticism were part of my wife's "Religions of the World" class...
-
this isn't about what people should believe. And some of you are taking your bigotry against Christianity and theism awfully far
I don't recall anyone telling anyone else what they should believe. From me it has mostly been an argument about word definitions and the incorrect use of words as propaganda.
-
Federal Government doesn't have the power.
While I can appreciate the simple math involved in your argument. Enforcement of this idea is not an enumerated power that the federal government has.
That hasn't mattered in almost 100 years.
All we've done it take away the success of health care from people that could pay, and put it in the hands of people with social power.
And that's socialism.
And that was the goal of ACA all along.
-
Awfully ironic that atheism and agnosticism were part of my wife's "Religions of the World" class...
It would not be far-fetched to me that one would also discuss the absence of religion in a religion class.... However, given that it was a religion class, my previous statement that many religious can't fathom how atheists could not have faith in something seems to be pertinent. She appears to have been in a class that can't fathom it either, or was studying the lack of it.
-
I'm saying that any statement about god relies on faith. Including nonexistence.
How about simply not giving a shit about its existence or nonexistence? Or simply considering it improbable enough to disregard?
-
This is not about a belief being correct or not
I've never said I'm right or even that I think others should think the same way I do. I only know what/how I think, and boomzilla's opinion that atheists have faith/believe in something even if it's nothing argument is just not 100% true in all cases.
Clearly I personally think I'm right, just as you or boom think you're right in your views. Because it'd be pretty silly to follow something one thinks is wrong!
None of us can prove any of it of course. As I understand it, having faith (in the Christian) goes beyond proof anyway, and requires one to not only believe, but to believe in the absence of proof. Therefore if proof ever actually came about to cause Atheists to have acknowledge the existence of god(s), it would still not be true Christian faith. I could be wrong about that interpretation, but that's how I've heard it preached by the Southern Baptist denominations in our area (yes, I've been to church plenty).
-
How about simply not giving a shit about its existence or nonexistence? Or simply considering it improbable enough to disregard?
I think that's called apathy ;)
Filed Under: slight sarcasm tag
-
As I understand it, having faith (in the Christian) goes beyond proof anyway, and requires one to not only believe, but to believe in the absence of proof. Therefore if proof ever actually came about to cause Atheists to have acknowledge the existence of god(s), it would still not be true Christian faith.
This raises an interesting question: what would count as proof?
-
This raises an interesting question: what would count as proof?
Of an omnipresent, omnipotent God who can pretty much do anything in the entire universe, even defying most basic laws of physics? I think he'd figure it out.
Filed under: he just needs to remember not to do it too consistently, or we'll call it science
-
This raises an interesting question: what would count as proof?
That's the point of faith.
Any interaction with the world would be viewed as physical. If God threw a meteor at Earth, a meteor fell to Earth.
If God flooded the world, a lot of rain fell.
If God himself showed up in the sky where we could see and performed miracles, an alien with advanced technology is trying to invade.
There is no proof that would convince anyone.
And even if there was some kind of proof, I've seen enough on the forums to believe everyone would get mad at him and not obey him anyway. They'd say, why did you make us to sin.
-
Filed under: he just needs to remember not to do it too consistently, or we'll call it science
That's just the kind of snark that gets panties in wads!
-
I don't recall anyone telling anyone else what they should believe. From me it has mostly been an argument about word definitions and the incorrect use of words as propaganda
Without the belief in a higher power, it may be difficult understand, but it doesn't matter if it technically isn't a fertilized egg yet or not. Morality under God is not about what you do, it's about why you do it. The intent of the questionable items is to affect what happens after the potential for pregnancy. So arguing what the words mean and the science behind it is telling them what to believe by telling them their beliefs are wrong.
-
If God himself showed up in the sky where we could see and performed miracles, an alien with advanced technology is trying to invade.
There is no proof that would convince
anyoneeveryone
FTFY
god(s) didn't need any proof at all to convince quite a few, I'm sure a little bit of proof would go a long way towards convincing the rest.Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent... being those things means you could bend any attempt at an experiment to your whim, making the experiment useless. So if something/someone indeed did those things as proof, then for all intents and purposes you ARE god.
-
So if something/someone indeed did those things as prove, then for all intents and purposes you ARE god.
My avatar is from the Church of the Subgenius. One of their core tenets is that what the Christians refer to as God is actually a powerful space alien.
-
One of their core tenets is that what the Christians refer to as God is actually a powerful space alien.
It's space aliens all the way down.
-
Without the belief in a higher power, it may be difficult understand, but it doesn't matter if it technically isn't a fertilized egg yet or not. Morality under God is not about what you do, it's about why you do it. The intent of the questionable items is to affect what happens after the potential for pregnancy. So arguing what the words mean and the science behind it is telling them what to believe by telling them their beliefs are wrong.
I agree with everything you said. You also at no point bent the definition of certain words to throw out as propaganda... so.... yeah? Again, when they stop whining about obamacare forcing "abortions" and start saying Obamacare forces companies to go against their specific non-medically defined religious opinions about the beginnings of human life, then I wouldn't give them any grief at all.
-
@darkmatter said:
something/someone indeed did those things as proof,
darkmatter said:
something/someone indeed did those things as prove
FTFM
Damn you, don't quote my typos! :(
-
Okay, that makes sense, and I can concede on that. Dumb arguments make both sides look bad all too often.
Like Harry Reid complaining that this decision came from five white guys... (I still swear the left brings race into it more than the right). I guess Clarence Thomas isn't black enough, like Herman Cain.
-
Like Harry Reid complaining that this decision came from five white guys.
Or saying that this ruling had anything to do with dictating what "women do with their bodies."
-
Or saying that this ruling had anything to do with dictating what "women do with their bodies."
Yeah, an equal amount of FUD from all of them. The only difference is the demographic they're trying to scare. Which is why I like none of them.Spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt is by far the easiest way to garner votes from the majority of the ignorant American public.
-
I'm still interested to hear why you think the reasons behind the decision were wrong.
-
And if you had a device that could freeze time and manipulate matter into any state with any force, then restart time.... would that be sufficient power.
Any action, no matter how science defying will have a cause. It will also be backed by a idea.
Consistent ideas with consistent effects become a scientific law. And these laws change as we find what appears to be exceptions to the law, just turn out to be described by a more complex law.
Therefore, if a scientific law could describe the alteration of matter (with or without conservation of energy) and redirection of force within a split second. Then it could explain any action taking by even an omnipotent/present/prescient God, even if the law was defined wrong. As long as the law describes the effect consistently, it holds.
Therefore, humans can convince themselves of anything, even within the realm of science.
Therefore, no action a omnippp god could take could convince any given human. The human is always convinced by some other means (fear, respect, emotion). No logic, no matter how sound, will convince anyone that there is a god.
-
The concept that it is a woman's body, and therefore they can do what they want is not valid.
Let's assume that a fetus is not a life, and that it is merely flesh.
If I walked into a doctor's office and told the doctor that I wanted to remove my arm. It's my body, my flesh, and I can do what I want.
The doctor would say that it is a particularly dangerous elective surgery that would violate his oath to do no harm, and would reject my petition.
-
Thought I said already that I disagree that companies should get religious exemptions by being considered the same as a person.
And they shouldnt have needed to bring this to court in the first place because there should be no law forcing corporate health insurance coverage the way thia one does.
-
Im not going to argue with strawman arguments comparing an IUD to cutting off an arm.
Also, I called that whole line of labeling this particular supreme court case as womens body rights being taken away to be bullshit anyway
-
Also, I called that whole line of labeling it as womens body rights to be bullshit anyway
Maybe all the fetuses and embryonic stem cells should go to college and become lawyers. Problem Solved.
-
Thought I said already that I disagree that companies should get religious exemptions by being considered the same as a person.
Sorry, I got that as a matter of principle, I didn't think you thought the Court should have said this as a matter of legal reasoning. I can see the corporate thing being reasonable (though I disagree) for a non-closely held corporation.
The common belief about corporate personhood is really abhorrent in that it seems to wash any sense of moral responsibility from the people behind the corporation. Which is odd, when you combine how typical holders of this belief (I don't know if you are included here) love to otherwise demonize the people running corporations. A related terrible phenomenon is trading government approval for moral reasoning.
-
Also, I called that whole line of labeling this particular supreme court case as womens body rights being taken away to be bullshit anyway
A consistent position would involve for example, legalizing all drugs (and unpasteurized milk). If you have the right to decide what to do with your body, that would certainly include deciding what to put in it.
-
Not those discussions again!
-
legalizing all drugs
I agree, drugs should be legalized, for possession/personal growing. Sales laws I think should still exist to prohibit snake oil salesmen (especially wal-mart sized snake oil salesmen).
And unpasteurized milk isn't illegal. It's illegal to sell it (and even that is only on a state-by-state basis), but a farmer can still create their own and drink it if they wanted.
My opinion holds for pretty much all things of the "put in your body" category... none of it should be illegal to do/own personally, but it can certainly be illegal to sell.
-
I think my "favorite" is not letting a farmer grow wheat for his own use.
-
How about paying someone not to grow anything?
-
That's pretty stupid, too, but without the retarded rationalizations as to interstate commerce.
-
Yay for the European policies of old for the Common Agricultural Policy.
-
That's your strawman.
I never compared it to IUD.
What I compared is the argument that you are allowed to do anything with your bodies, including removing flesh, is wrong.
You don't have the right to do anything to your body.
You can't mutilate it or commit suicide.
-
My point was that the people who use the "it's my body and it should be my choice what to do with it" argument are generally OK with all types of other restrictions on what people should be allowed to do with their bodies.
