R's Using the Law to Force "Religion" Down Peoples' Throats AGAIN

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by Zombie

Allow me to paraphrase - "Oh yeah? Well, tu quoque!"

I think that's much easier. Saves time typing.

Actually, just writing "you too" would be easier than saying "tu quoque". Yet, still no one has addressed the principal argument!

[Zombie]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Actually, just writing "you too" would be easier than saying "tu quoque". Yet, still no one has addressed the principal argument!

Doing it in the Latin makes you sound smarter. Duh.

As for the principal argument, I might address it, but I forgot what it was after the second or third post.

Oh wait - I remember. Whether or not we should let medical professionals deny care based on personal feelings, yeah?

Here's the problem with it:

You can't legislate morality.

One of the points of a "free" society is to let everyone have enough room to have their own beliefs and lead their lives how they see fit in certain respects.

The way we uphold that lofty goal is to allow everyone that courtesy - and those we don't agree with, especially. I may not like what you say, but I like my own First Amendment rights, so I am not going to tell you that you can't say it.

If we are to attempt to legislate morality in the medical sector, where does it end? Does it end after refusing to dispense contraception, or does it end after denying a child a blood transfusion because someone has a bee in his or her bonnet?

Further, how do we make sure it's being enforced "correctly," and not used as a weapon against those we don't like? How do we make sure it doesn't cause harm, even if the doctor in question believes he's doing the right thing and sticking by his idea of what the Hippocratic Oath means? People all over the world, every day, hurt others because of their personal ideas of what's right and what's wrong.

Obviously, it's a good idea to check out your healthcare provider beforehand, but it is an overly simplistic generalization to assume everyone has the realistic means to suss that out and choose another, more ideal doctor before the doctor's legislated morality comes into play.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by Zombie

Doing it in the Latin makes you sound smarter. Duh.

As for the principal argument, I might address it, but I forgot what it was after the second or third post.

Oh wait - I remember. Whether or not we should let medical professionals deny care based on personal feelings, yeah?

Here's the problem with it:

You can't legislate morality.

One of the points of a "free" society is to let everyone have enough room to have their own beliefs and lead their lives how they see fit in certain respects.

The way we uphold that lofty goal is to allow everyone that courtesy - and those we don't agree with, especially. I may not like what you say, but I like my own First Amendment rights, so I am not going to tell you that you can't say it.

If we are to attempt to legislate morality in the medical sector, where does it end? Does it end after refusing to dispense contraception, or does it end after denying a child a blood transfusion because someone has a bee in his or her bonnet?

Further, how do we make sure it's being enforced "correctly," and not used as a weapon against those we don't like? How do we make sure it doesn't cause harm, even if the doctor in question believes he's doing the right thing and sticking by his idea of what the Hippocratic Oath means? People all over the world, every day, hurt others because of their personal ideas of what's right and what's wrong.

Obviously, it's a good idea to check out your healthcare provider beforehand, but it is an overly simplistic generalization to assume everyone has the realistic means to suss that out and choose another, more ideal doctor before the doctor's legislated morality comes into play.

We DO legislate morality. I mean, all of our laws are someone's morality. There are some that exist for purely moral reasons, such as laws against public nudity, public drunkenness, prostitution, slavery, et al. To say a doctor has to do something IS legislating morality. You cannot divorce morality from law. Take a look at financial law, such as Sarbannes Oxley, there are a bunch of rules there that are in existence simply because they are supposed to be fair to all parties, such as laws about what payments to owners can be loans or distributions, which are of no consequence to anyone in the public sphere. Take a look at the tax law and see if there is no sense of morality there. By definition laws are public morality agreed upon by our collective representatives.

Also, I'd rather BE smarter than simply sound smarter. Saying things in latin when most people don't understand it just makes you look like you're trying to put on airs.

[Zombie]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

By definition laws are public morality agreed upon by our collective representatives.

Okay, you can look at it that way.

However, giving the doctors the means to use their own, personal morality to deny care is not the same thing. I imagine most people on the planet can agree killing someone is wrong, so that's "public morality agreed upon by our collective representatives" that is common and more likely to be something everyone can agree on. It is also something we can enforce in a more or less blanket, uniform way - you kill someone, away you go (unless it was an accident, blah blah, and leaving out civil charges for our purposes here).

Denial of emergency contraception is something completely different. Leaving it up to the individual preferences of medical professionals means it can't be enforced in a blanket, uniform way and someone is going to get trampled because of it.

And that still doesn't address the issues of how to structure things so that people have access to realistic alternatives should a doctor say no.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Also, I'd rather BE smarter than simply sound smarter. Saying things in latin when most people don't understand it just makes you look like you're trying to put on airs.

That was a joke, son.

[rubytuesday]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

He does not really care about what you said because he has not refuted it with anything having to do with it. Rather, he insults you by asserting that some article says some alleged survey says that Britons in general were mistaken about literary figures, etc. Therefore, you must also be an idiot and anything you say about your own personal healthcare choice is incorrect because of the results of this survey, which have nothing to do with you.

lol it's so ridiculous when you actually say that. Someone surveyed a few idiots in Britain (every country has them) so our health system is bad and anything we say otherwise is irrelevant. wtf?

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

I gues you must be confused too. Churchill was not a "literary figure".

lol you're so desperate! He never said anything about thinking Churchill was a literary figure. I'm sure he knows exactly who he was. You've gone nuts and lost any credibility.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Actually, just writing "you too" would be easier than saying "tu quoque". Yet, still no one has addressed the principal argument!

I don't think anyone knows what your arguing about anymore.

[ajmccarrell]

His sentence was written in such a way that would indicate that Churchill was a literary figure, as were other people mentioned in the article. As to whether or not he does, I cannot assume. This is the guy who says the key to fixing the economy is bringing back tax increases. So, I wouldn't assume he knows anything unless he states it. As far as the rest of it, you can say "I've lost credibility" all you want, but chances are I never had it with you anyway. I frankly don't care if you find me credible or not.

[rubytuesday]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

His sentence was written in such a way that would indicate that Churchill was a literary figure, as were other people mentioned in the article. As to whether or not he does, I cannot assume. This is the guy who says the key to fixing the economy is bringing back tax increases. So, I wouldn't assume he knows anything unless he states it. As far as the rest of it, you can say "I've lost credibility" all you want, but chances are I never had it with you anyway. I frankly don't care if you find me credible or not.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

He does not really care about what you said because he has not refuted it with anything having to do with it. Rather, he insults you by asserting that some article says some alleged survey says that Britons in general were mistaken about literary figures, etc. .......

You mentioned sherlock holmes didn't you? I think he was referring to that. Churchill was shortened to "etc". Come on don't be daft he didn't indicate at all that churchill was fictional of course the guy knows who Churchill was. Apart from a couple idiots that were surveyed everyone knows who he was.

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Again, you post was mostly personal attacks. Maybe cite something that says that Europeans do well on math tests or something to support your position?

The Pravda quote was not just one occasion, but was illustrative of something that they routinely do. It was the one occasion that I could think of off the top of my head that was plainly a lie that REALLY stuck with me as truly ridiculous. I mean, who doesn't know that Putin controls the press in Russia anymore? It is nothing more than government spin. They have no compunction about reporting lies. I used to read the dispatches sent by a guy in another group from the foreign press, but they reports usually bore no resemblance to what was actually going on here. They were full of anti-American bias and slant, yet, you call me xenophobic?! Europeans tend to be the most hostile to Americans, snobbish, and condescending people. Try going somewhere in Paris as an American without running into someone being rude because you are American. Me xenophobic? Whatever?!

I already showed to you that the "survey" you love to cite as proof was incredibly lightweight. Where are your stats and figures to prove that Europeans are stupid? Again you didn't address why you would be more qualified to speak about another country's health system over someone who actually lives there, which was the original point. But you know, keep deflecting if you must.

Btw here's your maths stats from a US newspaper no less http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120400730.html
Please note a European country, Finland, came top.


And yes, the Russian press and the UK press, for instance, are exactly the same thing

And if this is your attitude towards European people than no wonder people in Paris didn't welcome you with open arms. I'm sure there are plenty of American people here who have had positive experiences in Paris (which is just one city in the whole of Europe). I bet Strand, who is well travelled, would back me up here. I wouldn't dismiss the whole of the US just because of one bad experience but that's just me (and I've been to the US many times). Obviously you want to think badly of people outside of the US.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by rubytuesday

. . . He never said anything about thinking Churchill was a literary figure. I'm sure he knows exactly who he was. You've gone nuts and lost any credibility . . . .

Originally Posted by rubytuesday

You mentioned sherlock holmes didn't you? I think he was referring to that. Churchill was shortened to "etc". Come on don't be daft he didn't indicate at all that churchill was fictional of course the guy knows who Churchill was. Apart from a couple idiots that were surveyed everyone knows who he was.

I know. I said:

Rather, he insults you by asserting that some article says some alleged survey says that Britons in general were mistaken about literary figures, etc.

From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/etcetera (affectionately referred to my me as the big red dic. ) :

Main Entry: et·cet·era
Pronunciation: \et-ˈse-tə-rə, -ˈse-trə also it-, ÷ek-, ÷ik-\
Function: noun
Date: 1597
1: a number of unspecified additional persons or things
2plural : unspecified additional items : odds and ends

So, clearly I was not just referring to literary figures like Sherlock Holmes. Rather I used "etc." to represent the logical continuation of the series of examples used in the cited survey, which I specifically referred to in the same sentence.

Whatever

Also "tu quoque" is Latin for "You, too" or "You, also" - but it is used to mean an accusation of hypocrisy, which I believe was the intent in this case.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

. . . I bet Strand, who is well travelled, would back me up here. I wouldn't dismiss the whole of the US just because of one bad experience but that's just me (and I've been to the US many times). Obviously you want to think badly of people outside of the US.

I was there about three weeks ago and had a great time.

I was also in London, Bilbao, La Coruna, Lisbon, Seville, and Barcelona. Everyone I encountered was friendly in all those places. In my opinion and based on my experience (which includes four of the five continents) - you have to be open minded and willing to try to fit in if you want to be accepted. If you are unwilling to do that or show up with some "America is the greatest country in the whole world and/or I have more money than you" attitude, etc., then of course you will be treated poorly anywhere. But that does not mean the people treating you poorly are jerks at heart as a matter of fact. It actually means you are a jerk. But, I am sure there are actual jerks everywhere though, but that does not mean everyone is a jerk

Note - I am not saying anyone here is a jerk. I am speaking in general terms based on my experience.

Of course, when I was in London drunk out of my mind on Old Compton St. and started yelling "YOU'D ALL BE SPEAKING GERMAN IF IT WEREN'T FOR ME!!!!!!!!!" -- I wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

Also, I'd rather BE smarter than simply sound smarter. Saying things in latin when most people don't understand it just makes you look like you're trying to put on airs.

Being smart and sounding smart are as unseperable as Law and Morality. You, my dear, are the most conventional and selfabsorbed cyberpersonality I've ever met. You are the summary of The Typical American we love so much in Europe. Rude, full of himself, patriottic, tunnelview,ehhh Bush's son?

Note - I am not saying anyone here is a jerk. I am speaking in general terms based on my experience on this board.

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Of course, when I was in London drunk out of my mind on Old Compton St. and started yelling "YOU'D ALL BE SPEAKING GERMAN IF IT WEREN'T FOR ME!!!!!!!!!" -- I wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms

But you spoke the truth, Strand. Do you still have your teeth?

[trackaghost]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Of course, when I was in London drunk out of my mind on Old Compton St. and started yelling "YOU'D ALL BE SPEAKING GERMAN IF IT WEREN'T FOR ME!!!!!!!!!" -- I wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms

I so wish I could have seen that

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

But you spoke the truth, Strand. Do you still have your teeth?

Originally Posted by trackaghost

I so wish I could have seen that

Not even I am that brave Actually, the fun part was the bar hopping, the subsequent 20 Euro McDonald's food orgy, and then the bicycle ricksaw ride home at like 2 A.M. during which I was belting who the hell knows how many showtunes and Stevie tunes on the way from Soho to Notting Hill. That I was not arrested and/or beaten to within an inch of my life in Mayfair alone is repayment for whatever part America played in WWII

[rubytuesday]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Not even I am that brave Actually, the fun part was the bar hopping, the subsequent 20 Euro McDonald's food orgy

Bar hopping! Go to edinburgh? Rose Street is the ultimate. If your gonna get pissed go its worth travelling the world for rose street.