|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
eeven73 PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 5377 City: Halfway
|
Posted: Jul 02, 2014 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | I don't know about you, but I really don't want profit to be a motive in my current state of well being. It is a bit morbid for a company to use your well being as a profit center. |
Exactly why it should be disconnected from employment.
Quote: | In the end, the idea that we can all just go to the ER anyway is the very crux of the problem in the US. It is precisely why we are #1 in spending and #37 in outcomes. There are a couple of ways to remedy that problem (in combination with proper regulation), one is single payer, the other is mandatory participation. Until the time comes when (uninsured) people no longer use the ER as the free clinic, we will continue to spend too much and not get anywhere near our money's worth.
Last thought - who do you think pays for those ER visits? |
I totally agree, and obviously you know which way I lean on the solution. Doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to figure out what a person in a bad way financially that gets sick will do. "ER will send you to collections", "get in Bubb Rubbing line". _________________ Is President Obama a Keynesian? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
Neognosis Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster
|
Posted: Jul 02, 2014 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do I really have to waste time I need to be spending on work right now and dig up a some instances where private, profit driven insurance companies have screwed people literally to death to avoid paying for something?
Or can we just all agree that this happens on a pretty regular basis?
Can we all agree that we can go into a supermarket and buy literally any food product off the shelves and have a reasonable expectation that nobody in our family will get sick or even die from eating it, and this is largely due to the FDA?
And by the way, as for your first article, I now you mean that to disparage the FDA, but I WANT the FDA to look at what is being fed to the animals that I will ultimately eat. Remember mad cow disease? That happened because people were feeding cows... to cows. So yes, I WANT the FDA to look at those practices and threaten them if they are potentially bad for me, the end consumer.
And your second article is about the FDA reassuring the public that they would NOT ban the aging of cheese on wooden boards.
I am wondering if you even read the articles, since neither supports what I assume your point is. OR maybe your point is that the FDA is good? _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eeven73 PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 5377 City: Halfway
|
Posted: Jul 02, 2014 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Its right in the articles
The FDA proposed final rules to ban feeding of spent brewery grain to farm animals and aging of cheese on wood only after large public outcry.
Two classic cases of regulatory over reach.
Brewery grain is sterile after it has been boiled, but because the moisture content wasn't in the specification for "animal feed" it would have been illegal _________________ Is President Obama a Keynesian? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster
|
Posted: Jul 02, 2014 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Those are your examples of regulatory overreach in the FDA?
Not really good arguments.
Brewery grain is sterile after it has been boiled... ok. So what? So the FDA has a requirement that moisture content be required in the specs. What's wrong with that? When I buy some animal feed for my dogs or chickens or whatever, what's wrong with knowing what the moisture content is? I don't want to be thinking i'm feeding my dogs meat when I'm really buying mostly water, right?
And really.. a "large" public outcry about aging cheese on wood? I never heard of this, so I suspect that the large public outcry wasn't that huge.
So, an agency tasked with making sure nobody sells tainted food or drugs considers a recommendation that cheese can't be aged on wood (I don't know why, perhaps there's a good reason.) some people hear about it, and they change their recommendation.
Not really a good example of "classic regulatory over reach."
But again, I'm sure there will be problems when we finally implement single payer health care. But since there are problems now with private for-profit companies handling our healthcare, I'm looking forward to the change over. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eeven73 PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 5377 City: Halfway
|
Posted: Jul 02, 2014 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Both cases were all over the news so frankly I don't know how you missed them.
Yes it is a big deal if you can't age cheese on wood. Parmesean, brie and many others would be "illegal"
The moisture issue wasn't economic(water vs. meat) it was alleged food safety(boiled grain is sterile).
Cramming square pegs into round holes.
These are the tip of the iceberg of illogical regulations. If your fine with a world were Gov't fiat overrules common sense, Ok. _________________ Is President Obama a Keynesian? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond
|
Posted: Jul 02, 2014 8:14 am Post subject: Re: Hobby Lobby Decision |
|
|
chavez wrote: | http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/30/326926331/companies-can-refuse-to-cover-contraception-supreme-court-says
I respect the decision by the court, but I am having a hard time seeing anything but a ridiculously slippery slope here.
What will employers reject on religious grounds next?
The unintended effects of the Aereo decision are already reverberating, and that just came out a few days ago. How long until the first religious objection suit is filed for "x" issue? |
I've been reading through the ruling, opinion and dissent for the exact details. I came across this statement and found it a fitting response to your statement.
Quote: | HHS and the principal dissent argue that a ruling in
favor of the objecting parties in these cases will lead to a
flood of religious objections regarding a wide variety of
medical procedures and drugs, such as vaccinations and
blood transfusions, but HHS has made no effort to substantiate this prediction.42 HHS points to no evidence that
insurance plans in existence prior to the enactment of
ACA excluded coverage for such items. Nor has HHS
provided evidence that any significant number of employers sought exemption, on religious grounds, from any of
ACA’s coverage requirements other than the contraceptive
mandate. |
_________________ If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond
|
Posted: Jul 02, 2014 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okie Boarder wrote: | Neognosis, interesting question, for sure. It's amazing to me how easy it is for a belief to be promoted as core reasoning for one's actions, but then find contradictions. We've been seeing that more and more and it has shaped some of our personal decisions and convictions.
The IUD seems a bit silly to not be included as one form of BC they should cover, but ultimately this ruling still left them with a majority of the forms of BC as ones that should be part of their plan, leaving their female employees a lot of choices. |
After reading through the whole court document, the impression I get about the IUD is it is being viewed as preventing attachment after conception and falls into the same category as the morning after pill type drugs in this case. Not sure I agree there, but it makes a little more sense why they argued that and included it. _________________ If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was reading more about the RFRA and came across this article. It seems to cover the subject quite well and ties in the reasoning the SCOTUS used in the HL case.
Quote: | A Perpetual Haven: Why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Matters
Religious liberty is America’s most distinctive contribution to humankind. The genius of American religious liberty is that we protect every American’s religious beliefs and practices, no matter how unpopular or unfashionable they may be. By protecting all religious beliefs and practices regardless of their popularity or political power, religious liberty makes it possible for citizens who hold very different worldviews to live peaceably together. Robust religious liberty avoids a political community riven along religious lines.
But religious liberty is fragile, too easily taken for granted, and too often neglected. A leading religious liberty scholar, Professor Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia, recently warned: “For the first time in nearly 300 years, important forces in American society are questioning the free exercise of religion in principle—suggesting that free exercise of religion may be a bad idea, or at least, a right to be minimized.”
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Congress’s passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) was a singular achievement. For two decades, RFRA has stood as the preeminent federal protection of all Americans’ religious liberty. RFRA ensures a level playing field for Americans of all faiths. It puts “minority” faiths on an equal footing with any “majority” faith.
Yet RFRA has recently become a prime target for those who would deny robust protection to religious liberty. Congress may soon come under pressure to amend RFRA and diminish its protection, if the Supreme Court upholds RFRA’s protection of Americans whose religious consciences will not allow them to comply with the HHS mandate. Congress must withstand such pressure in order to protect religious liberty in America.
RFRA was an urgent response to the Supreme Court’s 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which dealt a serious setback to religious liberty. Before the Smith decision, the Supreme Court’s free exercise test had prohibited the government from burdening a citizen’s religious exercise unless the government demonstrated that it had a compelling interest that justified overriding the individual’s religious practice. The Smith decision reversed this presumption. The government no longer had to show an important reason for overriding a person’s religious convictions, but instead could simply require a citizen to violate her religious convictions no matter how easy it would be for the government to accommodate her religious conscience.
In response to the Smith decision, a coalition of sixty-eight diverse religious and civil rights organizations, including such groups as the Christian Legal Society, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, National Association of Evangelicals, American Jewish Congress, and American Civil Liberties Union, joined together to encourage Congress to restore substantive protection for religious liberty. RFRA restored the “compelling interest” test by once again placing the burden on the government to demonstrate that a law is sufficiently compelling to justify denial of citizens’ religious freedom.
Senator Edward Kennedy and Senator Orrin Hatch together led the bipartisan effort to pass RFRA in the Senate. RFRA passed by a vote of 97-3 in the Senate and a unanimous voice vote in the House. President Clinton signed RFRA into law on November 16, 1993. In his signing remarks,President Clinton observed, “We all have a shared desire here to protect perhaps the most precious of all American liberties, religious freedom.” He noted that the Founders “knew that there needed to be a space of freedom between Government and people of faith that otherwise Government might usurp.” President Clinton attributed to the First Amendment the fact that America is “the oldest democracy now in history and probably the most truly multiethnic society on the face of the Earth.” He explained that RFRA “basically says . . . that the Government should be held to a very high level of proof before it interferes with someone’s free exercise of religion.”
Although it has excluded state and local laws from RFRA’s scope, the Supreme Court has interpreted RFRA to provide potent protection for religious liberty at the federal level. In Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, the Court unanimously held that RFRA requires the federal government to demonstrate an actual compelling interest, unachievable by less restrictive means, before it may restrict a citizen’s religious practice. The Court required the government to show that granting an exemption to the specific individual citizen would actually undermine the government’s ability to achieve its compelling interest.
What RFRA Does Not Do
RFRA does not predetermine the outcome of any case or claim. As Senator Kennedy accurately predicted during hearings on RFRA, “Not every free exercise claim will prevail.”
Instead, RFRA implements a sensible balancing test by which a religious claimant first must demonstrate that the government has substantially burdened a sincerely held religious belief. The government then must demonstrate a compelling interest that cannot be achieved by a less restrictive means. As the Supreme Court explained in O Centro, “Congress has determined that courts should strike sensible balances, pursuant to a compelling interest test that requires the Government to address the particular practice at issue.” As Professor Laycock explains, “The compelling interest test is best understood as a balancing test with the thumb on the scale in favor of protecting constitutional rights.”
Rather than giving religious citizens a free pass, RFRA gives citizens much needed leverage in their dealings with government officials. By requiring government officials to explain their unwillingness to accommodate citizens’ religious exercise, RFRA enhances governmental transparency and accountability.
As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the O Centro decision, RFRA rebuffs the “classic rejoinder of bureaucrats throughout history: If I make an exception for you, I’ll have to make one for everybody, so no exceptions.” RFRA incentivizes government officials to find mutually beneficial ways to accomplish a governmental interest while respecting citizens’ religious exercise—a win-win solution for all.
In the final analysis, after hearing both sides, a court determines whether the government interest is strong enough to override the religious exercise in question. In the twenty years that RFRA has been in place, judges frequently have ruled in favor of the government, finding either that the government had not substantially burdened the religious exercise at issue or that the government had a compelling interest.
RFRA Protects Religious Diversity
RFRA creates a level playing field for Americans of all faiths, putting “minority” faiths on an equal footing with “majority” faiths. Essentially, RFRA makes religious liberty the default position in any conflict between religious conscience and federal regulation. Without RFRA, a “minority” faith would need to seek individual exemptions every time Congress considered a law that might unintentionally infringe on its religious practices. With RFRA, a “minority” faith is automatically presumed to be entitled to an exemption from a law that infringes its religious practices, unless the government demonstrates that such an exemption would violate a compelling governmental interest.
The default posture can be overridden if Congress chooses to do so, or if a court determines the government’s interest is compelling and unachievable by a less restrictive means. RFRA simply makes religious liberty the default position. This is as it should be for a country that values religious liberty.
If Americans belonged to only one religion, RFRA might not be necessary. But America is a country of tremendous religious diversity. As a result, as Professor Michael McConnell has explained, “it is not surprising that well-intentioned, broadly-applicable legislation often conflicts, sometimes severely, with the religious beliefs of certain groups of people.” Rather than force religious people to choose between obeying their government and obeying their God, “it makes sense to create exceptions for those groups whenever that can be reasonably done,” especially in light of “our society’s dedication to religious toleration and pluralism.”
For this reason, the oft-heard argument that America must limit religious freedom because it has become more religiously diverse has it precisely backwards. Robust religious liberty is the reason for America’s dramatic diversity and remains essential to maintaining that diversity. RFRA ensures religious diversity by protecting all religions, including the hundreds of numerically disadvantaged faiths, by increasing the likelihood that those faiths will obtain sensible exemptions from well-intentioned laws that unknowingly restrict their religious practices. In short, “Accommodations are a commonsensical way to deal with the differing needs and beliefs of the various faiths in a pluralistic nation.”
RFRA is a commonsense approach that allows Congress to legislate without holding extensive hearings on every potential effect that a bill might have on Americans’ religious liberty. This is particularly comforting given that much legislation is significantly changed as it wends its way through the legislative process, often after hearings have been held.
RFRA also helps to protect against administrative abuses of delegated rulemaking authority, as seen over the past two years in the numerous challenges to the HHS Mandate, including challenges by for-profit corporations and their owners. As Professor Laycock has shown in his amicus brief on behalf of the Christian Legal Society, RFRA’s protections encompass a for-profit corporation if it can show that the government has placed a substantial burden on its religious exercise, and if the government cannot demonstrate a compelling interest unachievable by a less restrictive alternative. Once again, RFRA’s broad scope protects “minority” faiths: excluding religious minorities from businesses and professions has been an historic means of religious persecution.
In the long term, RFRA maximizes social stability in a religiously diverse society and minimizes the likelihood of political divisions along religious lines. The reason is simple. As Laycock puts it, “religious liberty reduces social conflict; there is much less reason to fight about religion if everyone is guaranteed the right to practice his religion.” In other words, RFRA implements the Golden Rule in the context of religious liberty: in protecting others’ religious liberty, we protect our own religious liberty. Just as controversy frequently flares when free speech protections are triggered for an unpopular speaker, so controversy will sometimes accompany a particular application of RFRA. But our society has prospered by protecting all Americans’ free speech, and it will prosper only if all Americans’ free exercise of religion is protected.
American Tradition and the Right to Seek Truth
Religious liberty is embedded in our nation’s DNA. Respect for religious conscience is not an afterthought or luxury, but the very essence of our political and social compact.
RFRA embodies America’s tradition of protecting religious conscience that predates the United States itself. In seventeenth-century colonial America, Quakers were exempted in some colonies from oath-taking and removing their hats in court. Jews were sometimes granted exemptions from marriage laws inconsistent with Jewish law. Exemptions from paying taxes to maintain established churches spread in the eighteenth century.
Perhaps most remarkably, when America was fighting for its liberty against the greatest military power of that time, the Continental Congress stalwartly adopted the following resolution:
As there are some people, who, from religious principles, cannot bear arms in any case, this Congress intend no violence to their consciences, but earnestly recommend it to them, to contribute liberally in this time of universal calamity, to the relief of their distressed brethren in the several colonies, and to do all other services to their oppressed Country, which they can consistently with their religious principles.
Perhaps most importantly, religious exemptions allow human beings to seek the truth. As Professor Richard Garnett eloquently posits, “human beings are made to seek the truth, are obligated to pursue truth and to cling to it when it is found . . . this obligation cannot meaningfully be discharged unless persons are protected against coercion in religious matters.” Therefore, “secular governments have a moral duty” to protect “the ordered enjoyment of religious freedom.”
RFRA reinforces America’s foundational commitments to religious liberty as an inalienable right, to a government that recognizes limits on its power, and to a healthy pluralism essential to a free society. RFRA is remarkable for Congress’s renewal of its pledge not only to respect and protect religious liberty but to limit the power of our government. Rarely does any government voluntarily curtail its own power, but RFRA stands as a reminder that America’s government is designed to be limited. By evenhandedly protecting religious freedom for all citizens, RFRA embodies American pluralism.
In RFRA, Congress re-committed the nation to the foundational principle that American citizens have the God-given right to live peaceably and undisturbed according to their religious beliefs. In RFRA, a nation begun by immigrants seeking religious liberty renewed its pledge to be a perpetual haven for persons of all faiths.
Kim Colby is Director of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom at the Christian Legal Society. |
_________________ If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disagree.
The law should be, and is, supreme.
If you can't run a business according to the law because of your religious convictions, then find another business or find another way to make money that doesn't violate your religious principles.
IMO.
This goes for all religions. Can't work a job because you need a separate room to pray several times a day? Start your own business then, or find an employer who is willing to accommodate you.
Can't work at certain supermarkets because you might have to handle non kosher foods and meat? Then don't work there.
Can't have a business because your religion requires you to not pay for birth control or blood transfusions? Then I guess you need to find another way to make money.
Can't dispense birth control? Guess you need to go back to school and get yourself a degree to replace your pharmacology degree with.
However, the supreme court is the supreme law of the land, and this decision came about lawfully through proper channels. So, even though I disagree with it, it is the law until it is reversed. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yup, the SC is there for a reason. _________________ If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
goofyboy Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 19 Jul 2004 Posts: 4463 City: Houston
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
When did "wants" replace "rights"?
I keep seeing "women's rights" when in reality, they are wants. _________________ Work SUX! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012 Posts: 1454 City: Boerne
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Neognosis, you ever heard of constitutional rights? They are kind of a big deal... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
THEY ARE?~! GASP~! I had no idea.
Nobody is stopping the owners of hobby lobby from practicing their brand of christianity.
They are completely free to practice whatever they want. If it prevents them from having a business, then that's a tough break.
There's your confusion of "rights" vs "wants."
btw, "rights" are defined by man. So the line between "wants" and "rights" is one that is always going to be fluid.
For instance, in most other developed countries, health care is a right. Here in the US, it is still a want, barring traumatic injury or misuse of the emergency room. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
Back to top |
|
|
goofyboy Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 19 Jul 2004 Posts: 4463 City: Houston
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
No one has taken away anyone's right to health care. Any person can walk into any doctor's office right now and request to be seen. They pay for the appointment and leave.
Maybe what you meant was that "free" health care was a right. Only problem is that it is not free. Someone is paying for it. That is not a right. You are taking away something from someone else (tax money) to pay for service for another person. FREE health care is a want.
Side Note: I hope what I am trying to state is somewhat clear. It is difficult to type / write a complex issue like this, and my writing skills are fair to poor. I was a math guy. _________________ Work SUX! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I should say that we are one of the few developed countries that still treat healthcare as a commodity.
Yes, I did mean "free health care" as a right.
Most other developed countries believe that it is a right, and as with most other rights, they all pay for it, and they are fine with that. Why, they even enjoy it and cite it as one of the things they like about their countries.
We will get there eventually, perhaps even during my lifetime.
FREE Health care is a want in the US, but it is a right in most other developed countries. That's a more accurate statement. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eeven73 PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 5377 City: Halfway
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lets apply your logic for businesses.
You should move to one of those other countries. _________________ Is President Obama a Keynesian? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't argue with that logic, except that you apply it wrong in assuming that there is only one solution, which is to relocate.
The solution you don't list, which also is the one I choose, is to vote for politicians who claim that they will work to enact a single payer system, and to discuss the merits of that system with my peers. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eeven73 PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 5377 City: Halfway
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
You only presented one solution for businesses. _________________ Is President Obama a Keynesian? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chavez Ladies Man
Joined: 22 Sep 2003 Posts: 27375 City: Roseville
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
He's pretty close to Canada. He could probably commute. _________________
Quote: | That's Mr. Gingermex to you a$$hole. |
RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, I see what you did there.
I'll call the Hobby Lobby right away and let them know that they can stay in business, and the solution that they pursued (going through the courts) was OK by me, even though I disagree with the decision.
Fortunately, this decision WILL be reversed at some point, and the US WILL have a single payer healthcare system at some point. I don't know if I will live to see it, but I am pretty confident of those will be the eventual outcomes.
It's clear that most of you will probably continue to disagree with me about universal healthcare, and that's fine. It will be the pivot point in our discussions for years to come, I think. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | btw, "rights" are defined by man. So the line between "wants" and "rights" is one that is always going to be fluid. |
Um, no. There is a reason our FF's stated, "We find these truths to be self evident..." _________________ If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Um, no.
They are ABSOLUTELY NOT self evident. Nature affords NO rights other then the right to be conceived and the right to die.
They wrote "self evident" and then went on for pages and amendments to those pages DEFINING those rights. Because they are absolutely NOT self-evident. It's a clear paradox. If they were self evident, they wouldn't need to define them. And keep modifying and defining them as the world changes.
"Self evident" is clearly a matter of opinion. What they essentially said is "we think it's obvious what rights we should have, but since it clearly is not and we are forging a new society, here's a list:"
Note "WE HOLD."
NOT "These truths ARE"
And the reason that they wrote "we hold these truths to be self-evident" is because they were writing to a society that held the exact opposite truths to be self-evident. A society that held as true the idea that rights were afforded to an individual by social status and class. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eeven73 PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 5377 City: Halfway
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Neognosis,
What is the definition of "is"? _________________ Is President Obama a Keynesian? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
I see your red herring and raise you one roll of the eyes. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | And the reason that they wrote "we hold these truths to be self-evident" is because they were writing to a society that held the exact opposite truths to be self-evident. A society that held as true the idea that rights were afforded to an individual by social status and class. |
It appears more like they were trying to fight against the society that was not seeing the self evident truths and was in violation of those truths, the way it reads.
They make it clear that man doesn't give those rights, but man does try to take them away, and that should be protected against. _________________ If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
goofyboy Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 19 Jul 2004 Posts: 4463 City: Houston
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okie - all rights, are granted / taken by humans. Even the right to die can be taken away at this point in society. What you define as right vs. what others define as rights may never match up. That said, the more "rights" we try to define, the more difficult it becomes to actually define rights. Too often when we define a right for one group, we are taking away a right of another group.
My favorite example is the right to refuse service. If I own a store and I only want to sell to old, mexican grandmothers, I should be able to chose to do that. Now, the government has stepped in and said that I have to sell to everyone. They have taken away my right to sell to only the group I want to sell to. They have taken away my right to be a prick. The government has now legsilated morality and "fairness." I have an issue with that. _________________ Work SUX! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I see your point...still don't agree fully. I think the basic rights of life, liberty and happiness are endowed upon us by our creator, just as the FF's recognized. I think there are a bunch of other "rights" that have been defined by our society. _________________ If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
eeven73 PityDaFool Who Posts This Much
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 5377 City: Halfway
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
PURSUIT of happiness
Just sayin _________________ Is President Obama a Keynesian? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, sorry...got lazy. _________________ If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Neognosis Ladies Man
Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 17617 City: Webster
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | The government has now legsilated morality and "fairness." I have an issue with that. |
But some social engineering is necessary in order for the society to be sustainable.
Everyone will have a different opinion on where that line is, though.
Quote: | I think the basic rights of life, liberty and happiness are endowed upon us by our creator, just as the FF's recognized. |
I happen to agree with you on principle, though a "right" is a legal term, and God isn't a lawyer, and I think that is where we diverge.
Some possible arguments against your point, which is, incidentally, indefensible:
- There quite possibly IS no god. And even if there is, He cannot be proved, therefore you cannot prove that He gave us any rights at all
-- the "creator" certainly didn't give any other species "rights." In fact, the idea of a "right" is A COMPLETELY MAN MADE CONCEPT.
-- The entirety of nature is based on dominance and survival of the fittest. EXCEPT for humanity? Why would the "creator" set up an entire WORLD where there no rights except what an organism can fight for or dominate out out of other organisms... but he made all men equal? No other species is all created equal.
--
Our creator was pretty silent for about a million years of human mistreatment of other human beings. How weak is your god if he gives certain rights to all people, yet allows those rights to be completely taken away so easily?
Our society was born from a society that was very class based, with virtually no ability to change classes. And each class had it's own rights, with the lowest classes having almost no rights, comparatively.
And there is NO good argument against this that can be logically defended. And on top of that, the prevailing thought in that society was that was the way God wanted it, and he wouldn't have allowed it or set it up that way if he didn't want it that way. Why was the king the king? Because God wanted it that way, otherwise he wouldn't be king. Why is there a nobility that rules the lower classes? Because God wants it that way, and if he didn't want it that way, it would not be that way.
For centuries, millenniums, this was the way people thought, and the "evidence" seemed to support it. The "natural world" supports it. So, how you gonna come around and say that system is bunk, and everyone is created equal? Well, you have no logical argument. You have to just say that's how you believe it to be, and that's that. _________________ I walk 47 miles of barb wire, I got a cobra snake for a necktie, a brand new house up on the road side, and it's made out of rattlesnake hide |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nmballa Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Posts: 3906 City: Milwaukee
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jgriffith wrote: | nmballa, highest cost and the best...ill take it
Where do rich people from other countries go for healthcare? |
Sorry, fact is it is not the best. All statistics are against you on that one. _________________ jt09 wrote:
I used to get all happy when the girlie would make a colonic appointment. That meant she was going to be breaking out the "fine china" soon.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509037985&ref=profile |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nmballa Wakeboarder.com Freak
Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Posts: 3906 City: Milwaukee
|
Posted: Jul 03, 2014 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jason_ssr wrote: | whats sad is we no longer debate the fact that healthcare is a service, not an entitlement.
We are the frog in the pot and its getting warmer. |
Yes, but its a rigged system that is as far from free market as can be. Where is the free market where 90% is skimmed and access to inexpensive pharmaceuticals has been blocked by your own government. I pay for water usage. If your municipality decided to increase the costs by several hundred percent and restricted your access to other sources I think you would be a bit pissed. _________________ jt09 wrote:
I used to get all happy when the girlie would make a colonic appointment. That meant she was going to be breaking out the "fine china" soon.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=509037985&ref=profile |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond
|
Posted: Jul 04, 2014 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | I happen to agree with you on principle, though a "right" is a legal term, and God isn't a lawyer, and I think that is where we diverge. |
Probably. _________________ If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Okie Boarder Ladies Man
Joined: 03 Mar 2008 Posts: 10056 City: Edmond
|
Posted: Jul 04, 2014 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
nmballa wrote: |
Yes, but its a rigged system that is as far from free market as can be. |
Yep, that is our problem in many areas, not just health care/insurance. _________________ If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jgriffith Wakeboarder.Commie
Joined: 21 Mar 2012 Posts: 1454 City: Boerne
|
Posted: Jul 04, 2014 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
nmballa wrote: | jgriffith wrote: | nmballa, highest cost and the best...ill take it
Where do rich people from other countries go for healthcare? |
Sorry, fact is it is not the best. All statistics are against you on that one. |
Nope, we have the best, if you can afford it...sorry |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Add To Favorites
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
Copyright © 2012 - Wakeboarding - Wakeboarder.com - All Right Reserved
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
|