|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 25 2014 10:53 coverpunch wrote:The New York Times reports on the legal justification for strikes in Syria. It's still a work in progress, apparently. Show nested quote + Administration officials have said that as a matter of domestic law, they believe the United States has statutory authority to attack the Islamic State under Congress’s 2001 authorization to fight Al Qaeda. They also believe that Congress’s 2002 authorization of the Iraq war could provide an alternative source of such authority. The United States has been bombing Islamic State forces in Iraq since August.
Both congressional authorizations provide legal authority for the strikes in Syria, too, the officials contended, because of the Islamic State’s history of ties to Al Qaeda — notwithstanding the fact that the two groups recently split. And, they said, the 2002 Iraq war authorization can be read in part as promising to help foster a stable, democratic government in Iraq, which would include defending it from terrorist attacks. Show nested quote + Senior Obama administration officials said on Tuesday that the airstrikes against the Islamic State — carried out in Syria without seeking the permission of the Syrian government or the United Nations Security Council — were legal because they were done in defense of Iraq...
[T]he senior administration officials said on Tuesday that Iraq had a valid right of self-defense against the Islamic State — also known as ISIS or ISIL — because the militant group was attacking Iraq from its havens in Syria, and the Syrian government had proved unable or unwilling to suppress that threat. Iraq asked the United States for assistance in defending itself, making the strikes legal, the officials said...
The United States is also asserting a right to defend its own personnel in Iraq from the Islamic State. The officials said this should be understood as supplementary authority to helping Iraq defend itself directly. IMO he's on pretty solid legal ground for authorizing strikes, but it would be politically prudent to involve Congress and get them to vote straight up on an authorization bill. This is a fairly dramatic expansion of the War on Terror and Obama should work to make strong precedence for it.
a lot of people are dubious about their move to cite the 2001 authorization to use military force. it's a pretty huge can of worms they are opening up here, for presumably political maneuvering purposes.
|
On September 25 2014 10:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +States that refuse to accept Obamacare's Medicaid expansion aren't just leaving behind poor residents, they're also hurting hospitals' bottom lines.
Because the Affordable Care Act cut the number of people with no health insurance this year, hospitals across the country will see $5.7 billion less in unpaid bills, according to a report issued by the Department of Health and Human Services Wednesday.
But the difference in states that have expanded Medicaid versus those that haven't is stark, the report shows. Hospitals in the 25 states that already have made Medicaid available to more poor residents and the District of Columbia will see $4.2 billion less in unpaid bills and charity care, a decrease of one-quarter. In the other states, the decline will be just $1.5 billion, or 9 percent.
In other words, the reduction in the uninsured brought about by Obamacare has predictably led to a decrease in the number of people turning up at hospitals with no health insurance and no means to pay for their medical care. And that decrease is more substantial in states that allowed their poorest residents access to Medicaid coverage.
"It's actually showing that this provides benefits to states," Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said at a briefing with reporters prior to the report's release Wednesday.
The findings are a reflection of the fact that the uninsured rate, especially among low-income people, has fallen much more in states that expanded Medicaid than in states that didn't. Source
Note the methodology, as this provides no direct evidence.
The numbers of individuals who were uninsured and who were covered by Medicaid in each state and in each year in 2011 and 2012 were obtained from estimates made by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. These estimates are based on survey data from the Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement. These numbers were used to model the association between numbers of uninsured and Medicaid-covered individuals in each state and the amount of UCC provided in 2011 and 2012 (see Appendix B for detailed methodology and model outputs).
We then used this model to project 2014 UCC by using projected numbers of individuals who are uninsured and covered by Medicaid at the state-level. The most recent estimate of the reduction in uninsured was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, using ASPE analyses based on the Gallup-Healthways WBI poll, and suggests that 10.3 million fewer people were uninsured as of June 2014. Based on Medicaid enrollment reports, we assumed that the number of individuals covered by Medicaid would be 7.9 million higher than it otherwise would have been as a result of coverage expansion, of which 6.9 million is in expansion states, and 1.0 million in non-expansion states. We also estimated that roughly two-thirds of the decline in the number of uninsured persons (which is composed of both new enrollment in Medicaid and new enrollment in private insurance programs, through the Marketplace or through employers) would come from states that expanded Medicaid.
Based on the model outlined above, we found that, in 2011-2012, a one-million person increase in the number of individuals covered by Medicaid in a state was associated with a $0.292 billion decrease in hospital UCC in that state. Similarly, a one-million person increase in the number of uninsured in a state was associated with a $0.344 billion increase in hospital UCC in that state.
Therefore, a 7.9 million person increase in the number of uninsured individuals covered by Medicaid and an 10.3 million person decrease in the number of individuals who are uninsured overall, as we see in 2014 thus far, should lead to a net $5.7 billion reduction in hospital UCC costs in FY 2014 relative to what these costs would have been in the absence of coverage expansion, or a 16 percent reduction overall.
Most of this projected reduction ($4.2 billion of the $5.7 billion) is projected to come from reductions in charity care, with the remainder coming from reductions in bad debt. $4.2 billion of the reduction in UCC is projected to accrue in Medicaid expansion states, and $1.5 billion in Medicaid non-expansion states (Figure 9).
In short, they proved a tautology. They assumed 7.9 million more Medicaid enrollees would project out to save $4.2 billion in self-pay hospital bills and that's what they concluded. This is a survey of projections of estimates from a model based on 2011 and 2012 data.
HuffPo went farther than HHS's conclusion by writing that this would hurt hospitals' bottom lines, which is far from obvious because nobody has collected the data about how much of self-pay bills hospitals eventually have to write off as bad debt. We simply assume it is a lot because the vast majority of uninsured people are very poor.
|
On September 25 2014 11:50 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 10:53 coverpunch wrote:The New York Times reports on the legal justification for strikes in Syria. It's still a work in progress, apparently. Administration officials have said that as a matter of domestic law, they believe the United States has statutory authority to attack the Islamic State under Congress’s 2001 authorization to fight Al Qaeda. They also believe that Congress’s 2002 authorization of the Iraq war could provide an alternative source of such authority. The United States has been bombing Islamic State forces in Iraq since August.
Both congressional authorizations provide legal authority for the strikes in Syria, too, the officials contended, because of the Islamic State’s history of ties to Al Qaeda — notwithstanding the fact that the two groups recently split. And, they said, the 2002 Iraq war authorization can be read in part as promising to help foster a stable, democratic government in Iraq, which would include defending it from terrorist attacks. Senior Obama administration officials said on Tuesday that the airstrikes against the Islamic State — carried out in Syria without seeking the permission of the Syrian government or the United Nations Security Council — were legal because they were done in defense of Iraq...
[T]he senior administration officials said on Tuesday that Iraq had a valid right of self-defense against the Islamic State — also known as ISIS or ISIL — because the militant group was attacking Iraq from its havens in Syria, and the Syrian government had proved unable or unwilling to suppress that threat. Iraq asked the United States for assistance in defending itself, making the strikes legal, the officials said...
The United States is also asserting a right to defend its own personnel in Iraq from the Islamic State. The officials said this should be understood as supplementary authority to helping Iraq defend itself directly. IMO he's on pretty solid legal ground for authorizing strikes, but it would be politically prudent to involve Congress and get them to vote straight up on an authorization bill. This is a fairly dramatic expansion of the War on Terror and Obama should work to make strong precedence for it. a lot of people are dubious about their move to cite the 2001 authorization to use military force. it's a pretty huge can of worms they are opening up here, for presumably political maneuvering purposes.
Yeah, the most plausible reason I've heard why the Obama administration wouldn't seek Congressional approval is that they're scared of what happened last year in Syria, where Republicans acted like they were going to have a serious discussion about authorizing force, then they took advantage of low public opinion to pull the rug from under the administration, berating them for doing both too little and too much and then considered any possibility of authorization closed. It's notable that Obama's public confidence on foreign policy took a 10 point drop and hasn't recovered, and his public approval ratings are scraping all-time lows.
But it's weird that there aren't even rumors of White House feelers out there. They're not even trying to make a deal with Congress about a new AUMF to fight ISIS, even after clean bipartisan bills passed authorizing the training of Syrian rebels. With public support for strikes against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria at around 60%, it's healthy enough that Congress would almost definitely authorize force (public support for fighting Syria last year was about 40%, which would have been the lowest support to start war in the post-WWII era).
|
Norway28747 Posts
coverpunch I think you may have quoted the wrong post from stealthblue 
|
On September 25 2014 10:36 IgnE wrote:
What I am saying to you is that that is not nuance. That is a religious interpretation that ignores modern methods of analysis and achieves the same end result. Possible contexts are ignored (Sodom and Gomorrah being retribution for violating ancient customs about guests; Leviticus's prohibition being an injunction to have many offspring and discourage other outlets for sexual expression), while the ends are always in sight: "everyone can still be Christian, you just can't act like a homosexual." It's not like people who say "God hates gays" don't understand your supposedly nuanced view. They understand it quite well, and they reject it.
Okay, to be clear, I think homosexuality is morally fine, given that I'm unconvinced by any attempt I've seen to demonstrate that there is a Golden Rule / Greatest Commandment violation going on; gay sex doesn't seem any more likely to leave people hurt than straight sex.
With that being said "hate the sin, not the sinner" (not a biblical phrase, but a Christian idea) is a very important nuance. There is a profound moral difference between an ethic that says "fuck bad people" and one that tries to figure out why people do bad things, and to help them/love them in spite of it. The "fuck bad people" response causes all kinds of political harm, and is a prime example of why we shouldn't base policy off of poorly thought-through ethical systems.
|
On September 25 2014 12:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:coverpunch I think you may have quoted the wrong post from stealthblue
Thanks, I edited it.
|
On September 25 2014 13:30 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 10:36 IgnE wrote:
What I am saying to you is that that is not nuance. That is a religious interpretation that ignores modern methods of analysis and achieves the same end result. Possible contexts are ignored (Sodom and Gomorrah being retribution for violating ancient customs about guests; Leviticus's prohibition being an injunction to have many offspring and discourage other outlets for sexual expression), while the ends are always in sight: "everyone can still be Christian, you just can't act like a homosexual." It's not like people who say "God hates gays" don't understand your supposedly nuanced view. They understand it quite well, and they reject it. Okay, to be clear, I think homosexuality is morally fine, given that I'm unconvinced by any attempt I've seen to demonstrate that there is a Golden Rule / Greatest Commandment violation going on; gay sex doesn't seem any more likely to leave people hurt than straight sex. With that being said "hate the sin, not the sinner" (not a biblical phrase, but a Christian idea) is a very important nuance. There is a profound moral difference between an ethic that says "fuck bad people" and one that tries to figure out why people do bad things, and to help them/love them in spite of it. The "fuck bad people" response causes all kinds of political harm, and is a prime example of why we shouldn't base policy off of poorly thought-through ethical systems.
Except that it's not very nuanced when the "sin" is intricately tied up in the identity of the "sinner." Telling gay people to be celibate or go to hell achieves the same thing as saying that homosexuality, per se, is sinful: it negates homosexuality and homosexuals (what would it even mean to be a homosexual in a world where homosexuality was prohibited?).
This seems like a perfectly extensible idea to me right now, at 2am. If a murderer felt that committing murder on a regular basis was an enduring, deep, and essential part of his identity, then it seems right to say, you, murderer, are sinful/evil/bad (take your pick of terminology). Responsibility for it is another question entirely. It is and isn't your "fuck bad people" response, but simply saying, "it is deficient to be a murderer, or someone who is attracted to murder," (i.e. a chronic compulsion to murder, feels empty without it, etc.) seems desirable in many respects.
|
On September 25 2014 10:36 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 10:06 Introvert wrote:
I have to go, so only a quick comment.
My entire point was that this idea of "God hates gays" (more or less the paraphrase) was wrong. It would seem that we are here in agreement. People lack nuance in their understanding of Christianity and homosexuality. That's what's missing, I apologize if I came off as saying something else. Most people actually understand everything you've said. They are aware of the ubiquitous Christian apologetics: "God hates the sin not the sinner" "God doesn't hate homosexuals, only homosexual acts." What I am saying to you is that that is not nuance. That is a religious interpretation that ignores modern methods of analysis and achieves the same end result. Possible contexts are ignored (Sodom and Gomorrah being retribution for violating ancient customs about guests; Leviticus's prohibition being an injunction to have many offspring and discourage other outlets for sexual expression), while the ends are always in sight: "everyone can still be Christian, you just can't act like a homosexual." It's not like people who say "God hates gays" don't understand your supposedly nuanced view. They understand it quite well, and they reject it. That's a pretty questionable charge that will take some steep evidence to back it up. Aside from your grandiose opinion (oh that? your methods of analysis clearly aren't modern) masquerading as argument, you have very little here. You assert that YOUR chosen ends are apparent, simply because they're the ends you choose to accept. You bring up some very minority, fringe interpretations that you imply are unjustly ignored, but they neither prove your understanding of nuance, or say very little at all on the current matter. I mean, if we only understood God really just was giving notes on hospitality and procreation, then all this homosexuality business is just one big misunderstanding ... oh brother.
|
I don't want to get into it, but I will point out religion, secular law, and science are all capable of changing their minds and altering or scrapping certain rules. Which in the Western tradition has been done substantially and drastically for all three over the last 5000 years and especially in the last 150 years.
Calling Christianity or Judaism a Bronze Age set of beliefs is condescending and extremely misguided.
EDIT: Also, generalizing the opinion of the Westboro Baptists to all Christians is as bad as generalizing the one loony scientist who says climate change doesn't exist to a full-blown scientific controversy.
|
On September 25 2014 15:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 10:36 IgnE wrote:On September 25 2014 10:06 Introvert wrote:
I have to go, so only a quick comment.
My entire point was that this idea of "God hates gays" (more or less the paraphrase) was wrong. It would seem that we are here in agreement. People lack nuance in their understanding of Christianity and homosexuality. That's what's missing, I apologize if I came off as saying something else. Most people actually understand everything you've said. They are aware of the ubiquitous Christian apologetics: "God hates the sin not the sinner" "God doesn't hate homosexuals, only homosexual acts." What I am saying to you is that that is not nuance. That is a religious interpretation that ignores modern methods of analysis and achieves the same end result. Possible contexts are ignored (Sodom and Gomorrah being retribution for violating ancient customs about guests; Leviticus's prohibition being an injunction to have many offspring and discourage other outlets for sexual expression), while the ends are always in sight: "everyone can still be Christian, you just can't act like a homosexual." It's not like people who say "God hates gays" don't understand your supposedly nuanced view. They understand it quite well, and they reject it. That's a pretty questionable charge that will take some steep evidence to back it up. Aside from your grandiose opinion (oh that? your methods of analysis clearly aren't modern) masquerading as argument, you have very little here. You assert that YOUR chosen ends are apparent, simply because they're the ends you choose to accept. You bring up some very minority, fringe interpretations that you imply are unjustly ignored, but they neither prove your understanding of nuance, or say very little at all on the current matter. I mean, if we only understood God really just was giving notes on hospitality and procreation, then all this homosexuality business is just one big misunderstanding ... oh brother.
It's really not that questionable of a charge. Your argument appears to be, "but tons more people believe this religious dogma that's been passed down and tweaked for obscure ends throughout the millennia than in these so-called historians' opinions about what people lived like and thought about back then." That's cool, man, but we already knew that. If you want to talk about the historicity of the Bible feel free.
EDIT: Also Danglars I don't even know what you are talking about exactly. The post you quoted of mine doesn't seem to match your response, even though some of my other posts do . . .
Secondly, I don't give a fuck if you want to say homosexuality is bad for religious reasons. Just don't deny that you do. God can hate gays if you want him to.
|
On September 25 2014 15:24 coverpunch wrote:
I don't want to get into it, but I will point out religion, secular law, and science are all capable of changing their minds and altering or scrapping certain rules. Which in the Western tradition has been done substantially and drastically for all three over the last 5000 years and especially in the last 150 years.
Calling Christianity or Judaism a Bronze Age set of beliefs is condescending and extremely misguided.
EDIT: Also, generalizing the opinion of the Westboro Baptists to all Christians is as bad as generalizing the one loony scientist who says climate change doesn't exist to a full-blown scientific controversy.
The changes can flow the other way too. Russia is much more homophobic now, under the guise of Christianity, than it was in the 90s. To a lesser extent, the rise of issues like prayer in school, in god we trust and other ostensibly 'christan' aspects in American public life appeared in the 1950s.
|
As we talk about inequality, I'm curious about it at the youngest levels. In Europe, do they have any college sports that are as big as American college football or basketball? In the US, these are multibillion dollar sports where many of the kids are essentially showing off their skills to recruiters in professional sports leagues, so there are many critics that "student athlete" is a joke of a term for an academic institution to make.
This is especially true of more sport-oriented schools like the University of Texas or the University of Southern California, which seems to devote far more attention and glory to its athletic achievements than it does to any of its academic ones. You'd arguably rather be the MVP of a national championship team in football or basketball from those schools than win the Nobel Prize representing them - if nothing else, it would likely be far more lucrative financially. And it is true that those two schools spend more money on football and basketball scholarships than they do on graduate student fellowships, although you would note that football and basketball generate much more revenue for those schools than they receive in research funding.
There are interesting discussions out there about whether the students are being exploited by the universities and whether they should be paid to play (paid above their scholarships for tuition, like a percentage of the revenue they generate). Amid the controversies of football injuries causing permanent damage, a former USC student is also suing the university for brain and pulmonary injuries caused during his time playing football, which is itself an interesting question of whether kids who are essentially crippled should be compensated by the university for their injuries.
|
In general european countries have no college sports/leagues. Sportclubs are just sportclubs and nothing more, they have nothing to do with schools/colleges/universities.
|
On September 25 2014 18:28 coverpunch wrote:
As we talk about inequality, I'm curious about it at the youngest levels. In Europe, do they have any college sports that are as big as American college football or basketball? In the US, these are multibillion dollar sports where many of the kids are essentially showing off their skills to recruiters in professional sports leagues, so there are many critics that "student athlete" is a joke of a term for an academic institution to make.
This is especially true of more sport-oriented schools like the University of Texas or the University of Southern California, which seems to devote far more attention and glory to its athletic achievements than it does to any of its academic ones. You'd arguably rather be the MVP of a national championship team in football or basketball from those schools than win the Nobel Prize representing them - if nothing else, it would likely be far more lucrative financially. And it is true that those two schools spend more money on football and basketball scholarships than they do on graduate student fellowships, although you would note that football and basketball generate much more revenue for those schools than they receive in research funding.
There are interesting discussions out there about whether the students are being exploited by the universities and whether they should be paid to play (paid above their scholarships for tuition, like a percentage of the revenue they generate). Amid the controversies of football injuries causing permanent damage, a former USC student is also suing the university for brain and pulmonary injuries caused during his time playing football, which is itself an interesting question of whether kids who are essentially crippled should be compensated by the university for their injuries.
The conflation of schools and sports don't exist to the same degree and schools are not incentivised to gain alternative income, besides university level (schools are more or less strictly publically funded and any outside economic influence is questioned, though it is starting to become a thing). If you play soccer - the most popular sport in most of Europe - you do it in local association in your spare time. The local sport teams more likely than not represents your local area and thus several schools. There is some professionalism in these associations and they do try to accomodate educational needs when players are getting ready for senior sport, but the sport actually takes precedent over education at high school level (at the age of 18), which makes many top-elite athletes less educated than in the US.
On the other hand it avoids the problem of "wasted" education on someone making it big in sports and makes the college-level and university level - they are generally the same thing in most of continental Yrop - more focused on the scholar achievement. It also creates a better system for non-mainstream sports. I imagine if you love Handball, Orienteering, Basque Pelota, Dance Sport etc. you will have to seek other ways to become competitive?
Contracts are afaik illegal for players under 18, but it is circumvented pretty often to secure talent for the big teams so the dilemma around economic compensation is actually real here too. Most sports are a little less dangerous than American Football and healthcare is mostly free so the specific dilemma is less relevant here. The US civil legal system is a bit to the loose side, while it is a bit to the tight side in Europe.
|
On September 25 2014 15:31 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 15:18 Danglars wrote:On September 25 2014 10:36 IgnE wrote:On September 25 2014 10:06 Introvert wrote:
I have to go, so only a quick comment.
My entire point was that this idea of "God hates gays" (more or less the paraphrase) was wrong. It would seem that we are here in agreement. People lack nuance in their understanding of Christianity and homosexuality. That's what's missing, I apologize if I came off as saying something else. Most people actually understand everything you've said. They are aware of the ubiquitous Christian apologetics: "God hates the sin not the sinner" "God doesn't hate homosexuals, only homosexual acts." What I am saying to you is that that is not nuance. That is a religious interpretation that ignores modern methods of analysis and achieves the same end result. Possible contexts are ignored (Sodom and Gomorrah being retribution for violating ancient customs about guests; Leviticus's prohibition being an injunction to have many offspring and discourage other outlets for sexual expression), while the ends are always in sight: "everyone can still be Christian, you just can't act like a homosexual." It's not like people who say "God hates gays" don't understand your supposedly nuanced view. They understand it quite well, and they reject it. That's a pretty questionable charge that will take some steep evidence to back it up. Aside from your grandiose opinion (oh that? your methods of analysis clearly aren't modern) masquerading as argument, you have very little here. You assert that YOUR chosen ends are apparent, simply because they're the ends you choose to accept. You bring up some very minority, fringe interpretations that you imply are unjustly ignored, but they neither prove your understanding of nuance, or say very little at all on the current matter. I mean, if we only understood God really just was giving notes on hospitality and procreation, then all this homosexuality business is just one big misunderstanding ... oh brother. It's really not that questionable of a charge. Your argument appears to be, "but tons more people believe this religious dogma that's been passed down and tweaked for obscure ends throughout the millennia than in these so-called historians' opinions about what people lived like and thought about back then." That's cool, man, but we already knew that. If you want to talk about the historicity of the Bible feel free. EDIT: Also Danglars I don't even know what you are talking about exactly. The post you quoted of mine doesn't seem to match your response, even though some of my other posts do . . . Secondly, I don't give a fuck if you want to say homosexuality is bad for religious reasons. Just don't deny that you do. God can hate gays if you want him to. Seriously, you'll have to do a lot better if you wish to persuade anyone that the widely accepted interpretation on this subject was "tweaked for obscure ends" or that so-called modern analysis invalidates all that. You have twice elevated your opinions on the matter as if they were fact or expert analysis, and I invite you to provide what initially convinced you that the multitude of passages had a major alternative interpretation that's supported by historians. At the back of all this, you still can't separate love at the personal level and hatred on the actions level. I mean, have you ever called out what somebody did as 'stupid' without simultaneously insulting him/her as stupid at the core? It's nearing purposeful ignorance.
|
On September 25 2014 23:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 15:31 IgnE wrote:On September 25 2014 15:18 Danglars wrote:On September 25 2014 10:36 IgnE wrote:On September 25 2014 10:06 Introvert wrote:
I have to go, so only a quick comment.
My entire point was that this idea of "God hates gays" (more or less the paraphrase) was wrong. It would seem that we are here in agreement. People lack nuance in their understanding of Christianity and homosexuality. That's what's missing, I apologize if I came off as saying something else. Most people actually understand everything you've said. They are aware of the ubiquitous Christian apologetics: "God hates the sin not the sinner" "God doesn't hate homosexuals, only homosexual acts." What I am saying to you is that that is not nuance. That is a religious interpretation that ignores modern methods of analysis and achieves the same end result. Possible contexts are ignored (Sodom and Gomorrah being retribution for violating ancient customs about guests; Leviticus's prohibition being an injunction to have many offspring and discourage other outlets for sexual expression), while the ends are always in sight: "everyone can still be Christian, you just can't act like a homosexual." It's not like people who say "God hates gays" don't understand your supposedly nuanced view. They understand it quite well, and they reject it. That's a pretty questionable charge that will take some steep evidence to back it up. Aside from your grandiose opinion (oh that? your methods of analysis clearly aren't modern) masquerading as argument, you have very little here. You assert that YOUR chosen ends are apparent, simply because they're the ends you choose to accept. You bring up some very minority, fringe interpretations that you imply are unjustly ignored, but they neither prove your understanding of nuance, or say very little at all on the current matter. I mean, if we only understood God really just was giving notes on hospitality and procreation, then all this homosexuality business is just one big misunderstanding ... oh brother. It's really not that questionable of a charge. Your argument appears to be, "but tons more people believe this religious dogma that's been passed down and tweaked for obscure ends throughout the millennia than in these so-called historians' opinions about what people lived like and thought about back then." That's cool, man, but we already knew that. If you want to talk about the historicity of the Bible feel free. EDIT: Also Danglars I don't even know what you are talking about exactly. The post you quoted of mine doesn't seem to match your response, even though some of my other posts do . . . Secondly, I don't give a fuck if you want to say homosexuality is bad for religious reasons. Just don't deny that you do. God can hate gays if you want him to. Seriously, you'll have to do a lot better if you wish to persuade anyone that the widely accepted interpretation on this subject was "tweaked for obscure ends" or that so-called modern analysis invalidates all that. You have twice elevated your opinions on the matter as if they were fact or expert analysis, and I invite you to provide what initially convinced you that the multitude of passages had a major alternative interpretation that's supported by historians. At the back of all this, you still can't separate love at the personal level and hatred on the actions level. I mean, have you ever called out what somebody did as 'stupid' without simultaneously insulting him/her as stupid at the core? It's nearing purposeful ignorance.
We have all accepted that it is possible on paper. You're the one who seems to be under the illusion that this is reality. I've never met someone who has exhibited your response. Nobody I've ever met who is uncomfortable around gay people has ever asked "but do you have sex?". It's not an important distinction for anyone when they deal with homosexual people or talk about homosexual people. It does play a big role in the "I don't hate gay people" defense strategies though.
|
Finally.
WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Eric Holder, the first African-American to hold the nation’s top law enforcement position, plans to announce on Thursday that he will resign the post he’s held for nearly six years as soon as a successor can be confirmed.
Holder plans to make the announcement, which was first reported by NPR’s Carrie Johnson, at a press conference at the White House on Thursday afternoon. The 63-year-old will call his tenure as attorney general the “greatest honor” of his professional life, according to a Justice Department official.
President Barack Obama, who has a close personal relationship with Holder, will not name his successor on Thursday and has not decided on a replacement. Holder discussed his plans with Obama on several occasions over the last few months, and finalized his decision at the White House residence over Labor Day weekend, according to a DOJ official. If Holder stays in office until December, he will become the third-longest serving attorney general in the history of the United States.
Holder, a frequent target of Republicans in Congress over the past several years, has made criminal justice reform his top priority in the last year. In an interview with The Huffington Post earlier this year, Holder said he had no firm plans about when he would step down.
"In terms of my own thinking of how long do I stay … I talk about tasks and trying to see certain things through," Holder said. "I want to try to get a few things done before I ultimately leave."
Source
|
On September 25 2014 15:13 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 13:30 Yoav wrote:On September 25 2014 10:36 IgnE wrote:
What I am saying to you is that that is not nuance. That is a religious interpretation that ignores modern methods of analysis and achieves the same end result. Possible contexts are ignored (Sodom and Gomorrah being retribution for violating ancient customs about guests; Leviticus's prohibition being an injunction to have many offspring and discourage other outlets for sexual expression), while the ends are always in sight: "everyone can still be Christian, you just can't act like a homosexual." It's not like people who say "God hates gays" don't understand your supposedly nuanced view. They understand it quite well, and they reject it. Okay, to be clear, I think homosexuality is morally fine, given that I'm unconvinced by any attempt I've seen to demonstrate that there is a Golden Rule / Greatest Commandment violation going on; gay sex doesn't seem any more likely to leave people hurt than straight sex. With that being said "hate the sin, not the sinner" (not a biblical phrase, but a Christian idea) is a very important nuance. There is a profound moral difference between an ethic that says "fuck bad people" and one that tries to figure out why people do bad things, and to help them/love them in spite of it. The "fuck bad people" response causes all kinds of political harm, and is a prime example of why we shouldn't base policy off of poorly thought-through ethical systems. Except that it's not very nuanced when the "sin" is intricately tied up in the identity of the "sinner." Telling gay people to be celibate or go to hell achieves the same thing as saying that homosexuality, per se, is sinful: it negates homosexuality and homosexuals (what would it even mean to be a homosexual in a world where homosexuality was prohibited?). This seems like a perfectly extensible idea to me right now, at 2am. If a murderer felt that committing murder on a regular basis was an enduring, deep, and essential part of his identity, then it seems right to say, you, murderer, are sinful/evil/bad (take your pick of terminology). Responsibility for it is another question entirely. It is and isn't your "fuck bad people" response, but simply saying, "it is deficient to be a murderer, or someone who is attracted to murder," (i.e. a chronic compulsion to murder, feels empty without it, etc.) seems desirable in many respects.
Except that you're only taking into account the practical position of the sinner. Christianity holds that feeling self-righteous hatred toward others is a bad thing morally and practically. The one doing the judgement is part of the equation, and their feelings (pity, rage, love, what-have-you) spill out into policy in a tangible way. Just look at the Israel/Palestine thing. What keeps resolution so far away is that both sides are obsessed with an idea of how evil the enemy is, and how it must be anihilated. The lack is of an understanding for *why* the enemy actually does these evil things.
|
On September 25 2014 13:30 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2014 10:36 IgnE wrote:
What I am saying to you is that that is not nuance. That is a religious interpretation that ignores modern methods of analysis and achieves the same end result. Possible contexts are ignored (Sodom and Gomorrah being retribution for violating ancient customs about guests; Leviticus's prohibition being an injunction to have many offspring and discourage other outlets for sexual expression), while the ends are always in sight: "everyone can still be Christian, you just can't act like a homosexual." It's not like people who say "God hates gays" don't understand your supposedly nuanced view. They understand it quite well, and they reject it. Okay, to be clear, I think homosexuality is morally fine, given that I'm unconvinced by any attempt I've seen to demonstrate that there is a Golden Rule / Greatest Commandment violation going on; gay sex doesn't seem any more likely to leave people hurt than straight sex. With that being said "hate the sin, not the sinner" (not a biblical phrase, but a Christian idea) is a very important nuance. There is a profound moral difference between an ethic that says "fuck bad people" and one that tries to figure out why people do bad things, and to help them/love them in spite of it. The "fuck bad people" response causes all kinds of political harm, and is a prime example of why we shouldn't base policy off of poorly thought-through ethical systems.
At the end of the day this difference doesn't matter because it's still ridiculous to tell a gay person not to commit gay sexual acts. A person's sexuality is an integral part of their identity, so telling them not to express it is to oppress them and to tell them not to be themselves.
|
Holder should have left a year ago.
President Barack Obama signed a proclamation on Thursday to create the world’s largest marine sanctuary in the Pacific Ocean in a bid to protect sea life from climate change, the White House said.
The decree expanded the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument in the south-central Pacific, thereby making it off-limits to development and commercial fishing.
"The administration identified expanding the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument as an area of particular interest because science has shown that large marine protected areas can help rebuild biodiversity, support fish populations, and improve overall ecosystem resilience," a White House statement issued Wednesday said.
The expanded reserve will cover 490,000 square miles — an area roughly three times the size of California.
The proclamation bans commercial fishing, deep-sea mining and other extraction of underwater resources, but recreational fishing will continue to be allowed. White House officials said they decided to allow some fishing in an attempt to preserve and encourage the public's access to federal areas.
Millions of seabirds, sea turtles and marine mammals live in the bio-rich expanse included in the reserve, which will also add new protections for more than 130 "seamounts" – underwater mountains where rare or undiscovered species are frequently found.
The move to broaden the George W. Bush-era reserve comes as Obama seeks to show concrete presidential action to protect the environment, despite firm opposition in Congress to new environmental legislation. At the United Nations this week, Obama announced new U.S. commitments to help other nations deal with the effects of climate change, as world leaders seek to galvanize support for a major global climate treaty to be finalized next year in Paris.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
