|
George Takei vs Hobby Lobby
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-07-12 11:26:08
Oh look an insult. The point and the fact is that there isn't really a difference. They're both (well the one was) radical lunatics. The only difference is where they were born.
Stop being a Christian apologist it's disgusting.
edit: so is your direct insult there instead of making a point, but hey, this is P&R.
edit2: the fact that you don't grasp that they're two sides of the same coin is almost baffling.
First calling your comment short sighted is not an insult. Grab a dictionary please. However, calling my views disgusting is.
Assuming one is actually a terrorist:
One hasn't killed anyone, and only kills in defense. The other has killed someone using force to terrorize and oppress people.
It's like comparing a gang member to a police officer. But hey they're all just people with guns right?
By Jetackuu 2014-07-12 11:28:12
That's stupid and defeats the purpose of the definition of a fallacy in the first place.
fal·la·cy
ˈfaləsē/
noun
noun: fallacy; plural noun: fallacies
Logic
a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid.
edit: that "Alyse" had several other fails in logic, but it still didn't render the premise true.
By Jetackuu 2014-07-12 11:31:07
Oh look an insult. The point and the fact is that there isn't really a difference. They're both (well the one was) radical lunatics. The only difference is where they were born.
Stop being a Christian apologist it's disgusting.
edit: so is your direct insult there instead of making a point, but hey, this is P&R.
edit2: the fact that you don't grasp that they're two sides of the same coin is almost baffling.
First calling your comment short sighted is not an insult. Grab a dictionary please. However, calling my views disgusting is.
Assuming one is actually a terrorist:
One hasn't killed anyone, and only kills in defense. The other has killed someone using force to terrorize and oppress people.
It's like comparing a gang member to a police officer. But hey they're all just people with guns right?
You're the one who needs to grab a dictionary, as what you said was an insult, what I said wasn't. Learn to Engrish*
There are many levels of terrorism and radicalism, but to say they're different is being obtuse.
But go on and keep not understanding that terrorism is another word for "freedom fighter" as has been the case throughout history if you can sleep better at night supporting domestic terrorism.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-07-12 11:32:32
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »Almost everyone here has a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevance of the bible in modern Christianity.
Isn't that a lot of America Nausi? I mean people pick and choose from the bible as they see fit and that's dangerous especially when many read the bible verbatim rather than allegories.
Yes there are good Christians out there who emphasize the good parts of the bible such has helping the poor, good will toward men, etc., but there are also a lot of people who misuse the bible to oppress others.
I'm sorry, and you are entitled to disagree, but Christianity has never compelled me to control the lives of others. It is not my duty as a Christian to ensure others live sinless- that's their own duty. Me providing birth control to an employee doesn't make me any less of a Christian, even if hypothetically I opposed birth control in my own life/family.
The bible is a compilation of teachings written by numerous people thousands of years ago. Some of them happen to express different view and wiewpoints from each other (book of x vs. book of y). Christians use it as a tool to teach a way of life relevant to life today. Those teachings haven't remained static over the last 2000 years.
No one who understands Christianity very well advocates "sinless" living. I mean one of the main caveat of Catholicism is that we are all sinners by our design. I might offer you the logic of many idiots are of catholic faith, but that hardly means a their idiocy comes from Catholicism.
If some Xs are Ys and some Ys are Zs does that mean all Xs are Zs? I mean there are alot of really dumb atheists out there, but I don't go around saying people are stupid BECAUSE they're atheist. Where as most people on this sight are so ingrained in their anti religion bias that they cannot ever remove it from their sleeves.
It's pretty shortsighted, and pretty intolerant.
Valefor.Sehachan
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2014-07-12 11:41:05
I don't think so. I believe the point is that you can be right and yet have very poor oratory skills; or be wrong and be an awesome communicator.
Can also replace right and wrong with smart and dumb.
Bismarck.Bloodrose
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4322
By Bismarck.Bloodrose 2014-07-12 11:45:13
I don't think so. I believe the point is that you can be right and yet have very poor oratory skills; or be wrong and be an awesome communicator.
Can also replace right and wrong with smart and dumb.
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6558
By Odin.Zicdeh 2014-07-12 11:47:16
I don't think so. I believe the point is that you can be right and yet have very poor oratory skills; or be wrong and be an awesome communicator.
Can also replace right and wrong with smart and dumb.
That's exactly the point, and in fact I agree with Nasui that what's perceived as the "Modern Day Christian" actually has very little to do with The Bible, as how many people who identify as Christian actually has read it?
Interestingly, those most closely following the text are those even most Christians consider absolutely insane. People like the infamous Westboro Baptist Church are among those who most closely follow the text.
[+]
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-07-12 11:47:57
Christians use it as a tool to teach a way of life relevant to life today.
There's a difference between using it as a tool and living it verbatim.
No one who understands Christianity very well advocates "sinless" living. Correct, however, that doesn't stop zealots from practically imposing sinless living.
However, this kinda misses my point. My point is that whats the point in controlling the birth-control of your employees. Your employee taking a pill to prevent conception isn't going to send you the employer to hell. That's kinda like I provided my employee with a knife, they committed murder therefore I am guilty of murder and am destined to hell.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-07-12 11:48:21
I don't think so. I believe the point is that you can be right and yet have very poor oratory skills; or be wrong and be an awesome communicator.
Can also replace right and wrong with smart and dumb. I understand his point, but a fallacy that does not make.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-07-12 11:54:28
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » Christians use it as a tool to teach a way of life relevant to life today.
There's a difference between using it as a tool and living it verbatim.
No one who understands Christianity very well advocates "sinless" living. Correct, however, that doesn't stop zealots from practically imposing sinless living.
However, this kinda misses my point. My point is that whats the point in controlling the birth-control of your employees. Your employee taking a pill to prevent conception isn't going to send you the employer to hell. That's kinda like I provided my employee with a knife, they committed murder therefore I am guilty of murder and am destined to hell.
They aren't controlling the BC of their employees, if that is their aim, they're doing an awful job cause the employee can still go out and buy it and take it. They're just insisting that they not be the ones to pay for it cause "money is speech" and abortive contraception destroys human life. They don't believe that so they seek relief from being forced to participate.
I mean do you really think that every time I go out and not buy the bum on the street a sandwich, I'm controlling his access to food?
Cerberus.Pleebo
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-07-12 12:03:00
The fact that HL wasn't challenged on their false belief that birth control causes abortions is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this whole shitshow. For me, at least.
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6558
By Odin.Zicdeh 2014-07-12 12:10:51
I don't think so. I believe the point is that you can be right and yet have very poor oratory skills; or be wrong and be an awesome communicator.
Can also replace right and wrong with smart and dumb. I understand his point, but a fallacy that does not make.
fal·la·cy
ˈfaləsē/
noun
noun: fallacy; plural noun: fallacies
a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
By Jetackuu 2014-07-12 12:11:50
Look above, and missed the part relevant to a logical deduction.
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6558
By Odin.Zicdeh 2014-07-12 12:12:53
Look above, and missed the part relevant to a logical deduction.
Look above, you missed the part relevant to a logical debate. They're called "Forums" for a reason.
By Jetackuu 2014-07-12 12:16:35
I didn't, but this conversation is pointless, so drop it.
edit: not to mention that I never did/asserted what you even claimed, and not to mention that picture doesn't describe it properly.
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6558
By Odin.Zicdeh 2014-07-12 12:26:19
The fact that HL wasn't challenged on their false belief that birth control causes abortions is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this whole shitshow. For me, at least.
Though I agree, technically the argument could be that simply not becoming pregnant is itself an abortion, since that wonderfully nebulous concept of "Potential human" is lost in that case as well.
I didn't, but this conversation is pointless, so drop it.
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 5381
By Bahamut.Baconwrap 2014-07-12 15:12:05
They're just insisting that they not be the ones to pay for it cause "money is speech" and abortive contraception destroys human life.
IUD's were included in the ruling. I can kinda understand the fuzzy logic that the morning-after-pill is murder. However, an IUD common that's just straight Christian logic right there: contraception = sin.
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6558
By Odin.Zicdeh 2014-07-12 15:44:03
To be fair, if we use Religious-appropriate bronze-aged goat-herder logic, "Human Life" is technically only in the stage at which a female knows she is pregnant without any reasonable doubt. TO quote Game of Thrones, which was written by a fat old guy so it has to be Republican Approved, "She no bleed for two moons."
Therefore I put forth the motion that any abortion before two months is science and not faith, thus not protected by freedom of religion.
Defeat that logic.
Bismarck.Bloodrose
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4322
By Bismarck.Bloodrose 2014-07-12 15:46:08
To be fair, if we use Religious-appropriate bronze-aged goat-herder logic, "Human Life" is technically only in the stage at which a female knows she is pregnant without any reasonable doubt. TO quote Game of Thrones, which was written by a fat old guy so it has to be Republican Approved, "She no bleed for two months."
Therefore I put forth the motion that any abortion before two months is science and not faith, thus not protected by freedom of religion.
Defeat that logic. Hurp derp, floogity flawggin dip durp durp, Republican Versus Democrat, OBAMA IS EVIL!
Logic defeated.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-07-12 20:11:29
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »They're just insisting that they not be the ones to pay for it cause "money is speech" and abortive contraception destroys human life.
IUD's were included in the ruling. I can kinda understand the fuzzy logic that the morning-after-pill is murder. However, an IUD common that's just straight Christian logic right there: contraception = sin.
It's actually very effective up to 5 days past unprotected sex...
It was first discovered in 1976 that the copper IUD could be used as a form of emergency contraception (EC).[7] The copper IUD is the most effective form of emergency contraception. It is more effective than the hormonal EC pills currently available.[8] The pregnancy rate among those using the copper IUD for EC is 0.09%. It can be used for EC up to 5 days after the act of unprotected sex and does not decrease in effectiveness during the 5 days.[9]
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-07-14 09:46:06
The fact that HL wasn't challenged on their false belief that birth control causes abortions is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this whole shitshow. For me, at least.
You're all wet on this one bud. An abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability (that's right from wiki). Many hormonal birth controls (including the IUD) purposely alter the uterus so that fertilized eggs (if accidental ovulation does indeed occur) are rejected and cannot attach to the walls of the uterus.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-14 10:01:19
The fact that HL wasn't challenged on their false belief that birth control causes abortions is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this whole shitshow. For me, at least.
You're all wet on this one bud. An abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability (that's right from wiki). Many hormonal birth controls (including the IUD) purposely alter the uterus so that fertilized eggs (if accidental ovulation does indeed occur) are rejected and cannot attach to the walls of the uterus.
If you consider this an abortion, that makes it a legal medical procedure.
Therefore, as R v. W has never been overturned, the Supremes are essentially saying that HL doesn't have to cover a legal medical procedure that may be life-saving in some circumstances because of the foolish religious belief of the owners.
But it still comes down to this all being a dog and pony show for the real point anyhow, which is the Supreme Court helping to open loopholes for corporations to screw employees out of benefits and save money for the people at the top by citing "beliefs".
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-14 10:23:44
The fact that HL wasn't challenged on their false belief that birth control causes abortions is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this whole shitshow. For me, at least.
You're all wet on this one bud. An abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability (that's right from wiki). Many hormonal birth controls (including the IUD) purposely alter the uterus so that fertilized eggs (if accidental ovulation does indeed occur) are rejected and cannot attach to the walls of the uterus.
Removal means it was already implanted. Hormonal contraceptives are to abortion as an aspirin is to a double bypass.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-07-14 10:30:42
The fact that HL wasn't challenged on their false belief that birth control causes abortions is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this whole shitshow. For me, at least.
You're all wet on this one bud. An abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability (that's right from wiki). Many hormonal birth controls (including the IUD) purposely alter the uterus so that fertilized eggs (if accidental ovulation does indeed occur) are rejected and cannot attach to the walls of the uterus.
Removal means it was already implanted. Hormonal contraceptives are to abortion as an aspirin is to a double bypass.
You must have missed the part right after it where it clearly says "expulsion". Miscarriages are also "abortions".
The fact that HL wasn't challenged on their false belief that birth control causes abortions is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this whole shitshow. For me, at least.
You're all wet on this one bud. An abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability (that's right from wiki). Many hormonal birth controls (including the IUD) purposely alter the uterus so that fertilized eggs (if accidental ovulation does indeed occur) are rejected and cannot attach to the walls of the uterus.
If you consider this an abortion, that makes it a legal medical procedure.
Therefore, as R v. W has never been overturned, the Supremes are essentially saying that HL doesn't have to cover a legal medical procedure that may be life-saving in some circumstances because of the foolish religious belief of the owners.
But it still comes down to this all being a dog and pony show for the real point anyhow, which is the Supreme Court helping to open loopholes for corporations to screw employees out of benefits and save money for the people at the top by citing "beliefs".
This ruling was pretty narrow. I mean you can think it means that, but you'd still need to take another case to the SC to find out.
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-14 10:33:18
Time will tell. I think we shouldn't be surprised to see someone pushing the boundaries of this very soon just to see what they can pull off.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-14 10:44:52
The fact that HL wasn't challenged on their false belief that birth control causes abortions is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this whole shitshow. For me, at least.
You're all wet on this one bud. An abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability (that's right from wiki). Many hormonal birth controls (including the IUD) purposely alter the uterus so that fertilized eggs (if accidental ovulation does indeed occur) are rejected and cannot attach to the walls of the uterus.
Removal means it was already implanted. Hormonal contraceptives are to abortion as an aspirin is to a double bypass.
You must have missed the part right after it where it clearly says "expulsion". Miscarriages are also "abortions".
The fact that HL wasn't challenged on their false belief that birth control causes abortions is perhaps the most frustrating aspect of this whole shitshow. For me, at least.
You're all wet on this one bud. An abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability (that's right from wiki). Many hormonal birth controls (including the IUD) purposely alter the uterus so that fertilized eggs (if accidental ovulation does indeed occur) are rejected and cannot attach to the walls of the uterus.
If you consider this an abortion, that makes it a legal medical procedure.
Therefore, as R v. W has never been overturned, the Supremes are essentially saying that HL doesn't have to cover a legal medical procedure that may be life-saving in some circumstances because of the foolish religious belief of the owners.
But it still comes down to this all being a dog and pony show for the real point anyhow, which is the Supreme Court helping to open loopholes for corporations to screw employees out of benefits and save money for the people at the top by citing "beliefs".
This ruling was pretty narrow. I mean you can think it means that, but you'd still need to take another case to the SC to find out.
Expulsion - the process of forcing something out of the body.
It's no different medically than a fertilized egg not implanting under normal circumstances, it is not an abortion, neither is a miscarriage... Please don't start misusing words AGAIN.
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6558
By Odin.Zicdeh 2014-07-14 10:55:12
Why are Churches tax exempt?
They are Tax Exempt, yet my tax dollars go for their protection and federal/state entitlements (of which they have many) doesn't that make them a government subsidy?
So on the grounds of my Religious Freedom, do I get to not pay taxes until the Church Exemption is removed?
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
Serveur: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-07-14 10:56:55
Sigh, words not backing up your argument? Change their meaning...
Women expel eggs from their body every month. If the eggs is fertilized or has become an embryo or a fetus, this is an abortion, otherwise known as an aborted pregnancy.
You naturally expel "poop" out of your body everyday without a professional medically inducing you to.
VIP
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-07-14 10:57:58
Why are Churches tax exempt?
They are Tax Exempt, yet my tax dollars go for their protection and federal/state entitlements (of which they have many) doesn't that make them a government subsidy?
So on the grounds of my Religious Freedom, do I get to not pay taxes until the Church Exemption is removed?
I know you're being facetious, but this is the fundamental disconnect between rational people and religious people. Why are only openly religious people's freedoms acknowledged in any tangible way?
Bismarck.Ramyrez
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4746
By Bismarck.Ramyrez 2014-07-14 11:00:58
Sigh, words not backing up your argument? Change their meaning...
Women expel eggs from their body every month. If the eggs is fertilized or has become an embryo or a fetus, this is an abortion, otherwise known as an aborted pregnancy.
You naturally expel "poop" out of your body everyday without a professional medically inducing you to.
Yet some people do not and require medical assistance to do so!
HELLLLOOOOO COLOSTOMY BAG.
Wow he isn't giving up!
George Takei: What if Muslims Owned Hobby Lobby and Tried Imposing Sharia Law on Employees?
Quote: I’ve often said that these conservatives wading into the tricky waters of claiming “religious freedom” to justify breaking (or passing) laws should really be careful what they wish for. It’s advice I’d give to all of those conservatives who are celebrating the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling.
And based on his brilliant response to that ruling, George Takei seems to be an individual who understands this as well.
Posting his response on the website for his play Allegiance, Takei made several fantastic points concerning not only the hypocrisy of this ruling, but the dangerous precedent it could set going forward.
Takei wrote, “The ruling elevates the rights of a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion.”
“Think about the ramifications: As Justice Ginsberg’s stinging dissent pointed out, companies run by Scientologists could refuse to cover antidepressants, and those run by Jews or Hindus could refuse to cover medications derived from pigs (such as many anesthetics, intravenous fluids, or medications coated in gelatin).” he continued.
And that’s the slippery slope for which this ruling potentially opens the door. Where will the line be drawn where you say to a company, “Sorry, but your religious beliefs aren’t protected?”
What if someone who owns a corporation is anti-vaccine? What if they then say it’s against their religious beliefs for their company to offer health care that covers vaccines? Based upon this Supreme Court ruling, they could theoretically be within their rights to claim that.
But the best point Takei made was in a direct shot at right-wing ignorance. He wrote, “In this case, the owners happen to be deeply Christian; one wonders whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.”
As we all know, when these conservatives talk about “religious freedoms” they’re really only referring to Christianity.
He also went on to make the point that Hobby Lobby has invested in companies which produce the morning after pill and it gets much of its inventory from China, a country where forced abortions are common.
In other words, they’re blatant hypocrites.
“Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that,” Takei continued. “Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on “sincerely held religious beliefs” there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue. Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.”
Once again, he’s absolutely right.
For some reason conservatives seem to think that a lack of options equates to “more” freedom. Before this ruling, women working at Hobby Lobby had the option to have access to these contraceptives. Now they won’t.
If the owners of Hobby Lobby reject specific types of contraceptives, that’s fine. They don’t have to use them. But now their beliefs are being imposed on women who might not share those same beliefs.
Take a good look, because that’s how an employer can determine an employee’s health care coverage. Because a woman working at Hobby Lobby now can’t get health care coverage for certain contraceptives, not because she’s against them, but because her employer is.
How exactly is that respecting her religious freedoms?
Takei also points out religion is a way many conservatives have tried justifying discrimination against homosexuals. These “religious freedom” bills that essentially give businesses the right to deny service to homosexuals based on their religious beliefs.
The bottom line is, religion has no place in government or in business. If someone wants to express their religious views to others, they need to start a church – not a for-profit corporation.
|
|