|
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. |
On October 07 2015 02:18 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 01:27 Paljas wrote:On October 06 2015 07:06 Nyxisto wrote:On October 06 2015 06:03 KwarK wrote:
Surely it's impossible for anything that happens to be contrary to the will of an omnipotent being. Even with the free will argument it would have to be God's will for humans to be allowed to make this decision for themselves which would make the decision in accord with God's will. That's why people say "God has a plan" when bad shit happens and not "God doesn't run the show".
Those religious groups need some help with their theology.
Good decision though and it helps doctors escape the shitty bind they end up in where euthanasia is the only moral choice. "Making the patient comfortable" has been around forever. I think it's a little convenient to pick out the religious opposition again, while at the same time disability groups regularly oppose such legislation. After all these are the people these laws affect the most. The routinely seem to have very little to say in these discussions. Sorry, but what exactly are you talking about? Which kind of disability groups oppose such legalisation concernig terminally ill patients? And no, disabled people are not affected by such laws the most. Terminally ill people are. There are quite a lot of disability right advocates around that oppose this kind of legislation http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/disability-rights-assisted-suicide-california/397235/#disqus_thread
I think it is better to deal with preventing the coercion of people into assisted suicide. Slashing the whole thing away is lazy.
|
On October 07 2015 02:18 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 01:27 Paljas wrote:On October 06 2015 07:06 Nyxisto wrote:On October 06 2015 06:03 KwarK wrote:
Surely it's impossible for anything that happens to be contrary to the will of an omnipotent being. Even with the free will argument it would have to be God's will for humans to be allowed to make this decision for themselves which would make the decision in accord with God's will. That's why people say "God has a plan" when bad shit happens and not "God doesn't run the show".
Those religious groups need some help with their theology.
Good decision though and it helps doctors escape the shitty bind they end up in where euthanasia is the only moral choice. "Making the patient comfortable" has been around forever. I think it's a little convenient to pick out the religious opposition again, while at the same time disability groups regularly oppose such legislation. After all these are the people these laws affect the most. The routinely seem to have very little to say in these discussions. Sorry, but what exactly are you talking about? Which kind of disability groups oppose such legalisation concernig terminally ill patients? And no, disabled people are not affected by such laws the most. Terminally ill people are. There are quite a lot of disability right advocates around that oppose this kind of legislation http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/disability-rights-assisted-suicide-california/397235/#disqus_thread
Its the standard coercion argument, which the law can address through safe guards. Mis-diagnoses are also a problem. But the whole argument forgets that people can still kill themselves without a doctor. And that route is way less safe.
|
Yeah, assisted suicide in a system where healthcare costs can drive families into financial ruin has a lot more ethical questions than in a reasonable healthcare system.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
going with the trump style posting, focusing on the worker and factor of production aspect of the atlantic slave trade is like focusing on the worker and factor of production aspect of the concentration camps.
both are marxian analysis that shows the inevitable move towards brutal inhumanity of capitalism.
therefore this textbook is obivously a marxist plot to take over our schools. should be banned.
|
"Many Jews emigrated out of Germany, of those who remained, most worked in factories,construction projects, farms or coal mines, owned by German companies" #SanitizingHistory.
|
On October 02 2015 05:21 Plansix wrote:Assholes are not a protected group.
Tell that to Kim Davis?
--
On another note, theodicy is probably best left outside of this thread, as much as I'd love to engage on it. It's *the* obvious problem with monotheism. Different monotheist faiths have different ways of dealing with it. I am personally convinced by the Christian explanation (Universe is a love factory, designed to create creatures capable of love, which requires sacrifice, which in turn requires evil to contend against and suffer under; and we would choose this universe if given the choice between it and one without such evil, narrative theology etc.) but I am aware that others are not. Shouldn't really enter into political discourse though unless in a pretty perverse form, which I think we can all agree is stupid.
|
America's retirement statistics are grim: About 40 percent of baby boomers have nothing saved for retirement, about a third of Americans who are currently retired rely on Social Security for almost all of their income, and the outlook for current workers isn't much better. About half of private sector employees have no retirement plan on the job.
So some state governments are now trying to help them save. A handful have passed laws requiring employers to funnel a small percentage of these workers' pay into an individual retirement account run by the state. New Jersey could be the next to pass such a plan.
"We need to help them correct the situation," says Vincent Prieto, speaker of New Jersey's General Assembly.
Prieto is a primary sponsor of the bill that would create a state-run IRA for people who don't have a retirement plan on the job. Prieto explains that these workers would automatically be enrolled, and then 3 percent of their pay would be forwarded to the state-run plan.
"Most of the people we have talked to really like the idea," he said, because the percentage deducted is so small that "you don't feel it. And it could give you tremendous returns at the end of the day."
Employees could opt out if they wish, or they could choose to save more than 3 percent. And the state plan would have the same tax advantages as a conventional IRA. But it's that automatic enrollment that's key, says Sarah Mysiewicz Gill, who handles state legislative issues for AARP.
"People are 15 times more likely to save if they have access to workplace savings vehicles," Gill says. "But if you add on top of that automatic enrollment, you've got 90 to 95 percent participation."
Legislation to create some form of state run IRA has been introduced in at least 20 states. Laws have been passed in seven states so far, though none have gone into effect yet.
Source
|
On October 07 2015 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
"Many Jews emigrated out of Germany, of those who remained, most worked in factories,construction projects, farms or coal mines, owned by German companies" #SanitizingHistory.
You could spin that even darker, in fact. Would be hilarious to see the worldwide shitstorm if anyone would try to get that into german history books. On the other hand, calling slaves "workers" is hardly worse than the whitewashing in terms of native american indians.
|
The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Campbell, accepted the United States’ responsibility Tuesday for deadly airstrikes on an Afghan hospital in which 22 people were killed, stating that the attack was a “mistake” but that the ultimate decision to shell the facility was made by the U.S. chain of command.
“To be clear, the decision to provide aerial fire was a U.S. decision made within the U.S. chain of command,” he told a Senate committee on Tuesday. It came a day after the U.S. announced that the hospital was hit after a request from local forces, who claimed they were under fire from Taliban fighters at the medical center in the strategic northern city of Kunduz.
Stressing that the U.S. airstrikes on the hospital — which has drawn the ire of the United Nations and medical charity Doctors Without Borders (MSF) — was unintentional, Campbell said, “A hospital was mistakenly struck. We would never intentionally target a protected medical facility.”
On Monday he told reporters that Afghan forces “asked for air support from U.S. air forces” after taking fire from enemy positions.
“An airstrike was then called to eliminate the Taliban threat, and several civilians were accidentally struck,” Campbell said.
Testifying at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, he said he could not provide more details about what happened, including who may have failed to follow procedures for avoiding attacks on hospitals. He said he must await the outcome of multiple investigations.
Anti-war protesters sat in the front row of the hearing with red coloring, depicting blood, on their faces. They carried signs that read, “Health care not warfare,” “Afghan hospital bombing is a war crime” and “Kunduz victims: RIP.”
The strike and the subsequent U.S response has drawn widespread anger, not least from MSF, whose staffers were working in the hospital during the attack. On Monday the organization said 12 of its workers were among those killed by the airstrikes. MSF has called for an independent investigation into the incident despite ongoing probes by the U.S. Department of Defense, NATO and the Afghan government.
Source
|
On October 07 2015 12:10 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
"Many Jews emigrated out of Germany, of those who remained, most worked in factories,construction projects, farms or coal mines, owned by German companies" #SanitizingHistory.
You could spin that even darker, in fact. Would be hilarious to see the worldwide shitstorm if anyone would try to get that into german history books. On the other hand, calling slaves "workers" is hardly worse than the whitewashing in terms of native american indians.
Oh it's not nearly as bad as most native groups get it, but it's not a competition. It's about acknowledgement and correction, unfortunately that's too much for some.
|
Governor Jerry Brown signed the landmark California Fair Pay Act on Tuesday – described as the strongest equal pay protection for women in the nation.
The law provides that women in the state should receive equal pay for doing “substantially similar work” as their male counterparts, and have the right to compare salaries with co-workers without fear of retaliation from employers.
“I don’t think this is going to solve all of our problems but I think this is definitely monumental,” said assembly member Cristina Garcia, co-author of the bill, SB 358, and vice-chair of the California Legislative Women’s Caucus. “We’ve had a law on the books for six decades and while we’ve seen some progress, we can’t wait another 40 years to get to equality, so I’m excited to have something new to help accelerate that progress.”
The Fair Pay Act changes the rules surrounding equal pay from a standard of “equal work” to one of “substantially similar” work, closing what legislators described as a loophole that made it difficult for women to prove pay discrimination.
“Equal can really be a technical term, so courts can get really hung up on making sure two workers are in the exact same position,” said Mariko Yoshihara, legislative counsel and policy director for California Employment Lawyers Association, one of the sponsors of the bill.
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, co-author of the bill and Chair of the Women’s Caucus, said that duties don’t need to be identical to deserve equal pay, and that women bring distinct and useful skills to the workplace that should hold equal value to the skills men bring to the same position.
Source
|
On October 07 2015 12:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 12:10 m4ini wrote:On October 07 2015 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
"Many Jews emigrated out of Germany, of those who remained, most worked in factories,construction projects, farms or coal mines, owned by German companies" #SanitizingHistory.
You could spin that even darker, in fact. Would be hilarious to see the worldwide shitstorm if anyone would try to get that into german history books. On the other hand, calling slaves "workers" is hardly worse than the whitewashing in terms of native american indians. Oh it's not nearly as bad as most native groups get it, but it's not a competition. It's about acknowledgement and correction, unfortunately that's too much for some.
True, but what i was trying to say is, "you're" (as in, the US) already on the slippery slope. And i really don't understand why there's an uproar about calling slaves "workers" (which is really retarded, don't get me wrong - not defending it) when there's so much wrong with american education on the topic of native american indians.
|
On October 07 2015 08:47 Yoav wrote:Tell that to Kim Davis? -- On another note, theodicy is probably best left outside of this thread, as much as I'd love to engage on it. It's *the* obvious problem with monotheism. Different monotheist faiths have different ways of dealing with it. I am personally convinced by the Christian explanation (Universe is a love factory, designed to create creatures capable of love, which requires sacrifice, which in turn requires evil to contend against and suffer under; and we would choose this universe if given the choice between it and one without such evil, narrative theology etc.) but I am aware that others are not. Shouldn't really enter into political discourse though unless in a pretty perverse form, which I think we can all agree is stupid.
Religion in any form should be kept out of politics, but that will never happen. Being an atheist living in the south from a very conservative family I know for a fact that the vast majority of religious people can not separate their religious beliefs from their political views, which seems logical enough to me (if you believe you are operating under the authority and wishes of a divine being who knows everything then of course your system must be the best). The problem being that, in my opinion, such people are working from a fundamentally flawed and false foundation.
There were/are religious justifications (specifically speaking Judeo-Christian as that is what I am most familiar with) for many things that most progressive thinking people would consider abhorrent. Slavery, genocide, discrimination against homosexuals, etc.
Even in your explanation I can't help but see how beliefs give people a false picture of how things actually are. You state that you are convinced of the explanation that the universe is a love factory designed to do certain things when in reality the universe is a chaotic place with no inherit purpose and any knowledge about the universe and the goings on in it would show you just how chaotic it is.
But, you are probably right that such discussion should be left out of this thread, they never end well anyways.
edit: there also really isn't a sound way to 'apologetics' one's way out of theodicy. If a being is all powerful and there is evil then he permits it. If having evil is the only way an all powerful being can make things work then that being isn't very creative and a terrible designer of things.
|
On October 07 2015 15:55 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 08:47 Yoav wrote:On October 02 2015 05:21 Plansix wrote:Assholes are not a protected group. Tell that to Kim Davis? -- On another note, theodicy is probably best left outside of this thread, as much as I'd love to engage on it. It's *the* obvious problem with monotheism. Different monotheist faiths have different ways of dealing with it. I am personally convinced by the Christian explanation (Universe is a love factory, designed to create creatures capable of love, which requires sacrifice, which in turn requires evil to contend against and suffer under; and we would choose this universe if given the choice between it and one without such evil, narrative theology etc.) but I am aware that others are not. Shouldn't really enter into political discourse though unless in a pretty perverse form, which I think we can all agree is stupid. Religion in any form should be kept out of politics, but that will never happen. Being an atheist living in the south from a very conservative family I know for a fact that the vast majority of religious people can not separate their religious beliefs from their political views, which seems logical enough to me (if you believe you are operating under the authority and wishes of a divine being who knows everything then of course your system must be the best). The problem being that, in my opinion, such people are working from a fundamentally flawed and false foundation. There were/are religious justifications (specifically speaking Judeo-Christian as that is what I am most familiar with) for many things that most progressive thinking people would consider abhorrent. Slavery, genocide, discrimination against homosexuals, etc. Even in your explanation I can't help but see how beliefs give people a false picture of how things actually are. You state that you are convinced of the explanation that the universe is a love factory designed to do certain things when in reality the universe is a chaotic place with no inherit purpose and any knowledge about the universe and the goings on in it would show you just how chaotic it is. But, you are probably right that such discussion should be left out of this thread, they never end well anyways. edit: there also really isn't a sound way to 'apologetics' one's way out of theodicy. If a being is all powerful and there is evil then he permits it. If having evil is the only way an all powerful being can make things work then that being isn't very creative and a terrible designer of things.
Likewise, the religious faithful can easily see how atheistic thought informs their political views, specifically painting a false picture of the nature of the human condition and undue--even blind--faith in the attainable goals of progressivism. Just as the many atheists/agnostics accuse religion of clogging consideration of otherwise rational political thought, it goes both ways.
The laws passed federally, at state level, and locally are for a secular society. The founders knew it well and made sure federally that no law would be passed abridging religious exercise or establishing a religion as England had done. That's the limit on crafting legislation in respect towards religion. Of course your philosophical views on blank slate of fallen humankind are directly tied to religious belief. Why believe it if the truths aren't universally true regardless of ones belief in them? It will always inform one's thoughts about the tragic condition of the world or its capacity to achieve levels of utopia by progressivist legislation.
It's not a check box for candidate for me, it's always been track record and policy positions. Your sincerely held beliefs and principled positions are visible by deed not voice. But let us not pretend that your atheism or another's Christianity or Islamic or Buddhist faith can be separated from the most basic political philosophy. Then everything that follows might be largely historically informed or dialectically found (and of course religious thought on the governance of secular society has changed in human history).
|
On October 07 2015 15:55 Kickstart wrote:
Religion in any form should be kept out of politics, but that will never happen.
But what does this really mean? I agree that you can only take limited political advice from the Bible. The principles of Jesus say a lot about love for foreigners, the poor, the powerless, one's enemies, etc. They say relatively next to nothing about the tax code, international legitimacy, healthcare, abortion, gay marriage, evolution, global warming, etc.
But people will always take their moral principles into evaluating specific political issues. As well they should; a morality-isolated policymaking is necessarily about special interest groups competing for power.
So people like me end up evaluating all this from Christian principles and ending up pro-gay, pro-evolution, pro-fixing climate change, pro-education reform, pro-immigrant, and a range of other things. Other people end up on the opposite side.
On October 07 2015 15:55 Kickstart wrote:
Being an atheist living in the south from a very conservative family I know for a fact that the vast majority of religious people can not separate their religious beliefs from their political views
You realize that you outlined how your experience is exceptional (Deep South, very conservative) then tried to generalize to everyone (vast majority of religious people)? Most religious people are not conservatives from the deep south. Many are conservative, some are from the deep south, but it's nowhere near a "vast majority." Outside of the South--heck, outside of some denominations and viewpoints--you get a lot more diversity. The US is 70% Christian. It's about 40% conservative. Plenty of conservatives are atheists. (And a century ago, the religious vote was assumed to be Progressive)
On October 07 2015 15:55 Kickstart wrote:
There were/are religious justifications (specifically speaking Judeo-Christian as that is what I am most familiar with) for many things that most progressive thinking people would consider abhorrent. Slavery, genocide, discrimination against homosexuals, etc.
There are secular and atheistic justifications for all that too. Hitler's justifications were secular and, while inconsistent, generally hostile to Christianity and sympathetic to Norse Paganism or rational materialism. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot's justifications were explicitly and forcefully atheistic.
So yes, you can go through history and note movements where the side with more deeply religious people were wrong. The opposition to gay marriage is un-Christian. The pro-life movement has admirable sentiments but is generally mistaken. Prohibition was a bad idea. On balance, the Crusades were unjustified. But when you look carefully through history, you'll find again and again that the "religious justifications" for evil actions were generally promulgated by secular authorities and mobs as post-facto explanations. When anyone stood against them, as Las Casas did against Spanish imperialism or the Quakers against American mistreatment of Native Americans, or the abolitionists did against the institution of slavery (and yes, they were an overwhelmingly more religious bunch than the defenders of slavery), you see that it was only religious groups who had the spine to stand up and say, "No more."
Yes, religion can be a bad thing in politics. But the problem is more religious insincerity than religious influence.
|
On October 08 2015 00:58 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2015 15:55 Kickstart wrote:
Religion in any form should be kept out of politics, but that will never happen.
But what does this really mean?
I think most people take this to mean never using god/jesus/bible as justification for something. Any decision made should be supported in ways that are independent of god/jesus/bible.
|
On October 08 2015 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 00:58 Yoav wrote:On October 07 2015 15:55 Kickstart wrote:
Religion in any form should be kept out of politics, but that will never happen.
But what does this really mean? I think most people take this to mean never using god/jesus/bible as justification for something. Any decision made should be supported in ways that are independent of god/jesus/bible.
Basicly when your argument is this
And the one that I've advocated is based on tithing, because I think God is a pretty fair guy.
Your doing it wrong
That is Republican candidate Carson for those who don't recognize the quote.
|
On October 08 2015 01:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2015 00:58 Yoav wrote:On October 07 2015 15:55 Kickstart wrote:
Religion in any form should be kept out of politics, but that will never happen.
But what does this really mean? I think most people take this to mean never using god/jesus/bible as justification for something. Any decision made should be supported in ways that are independent of god/jesus/bible. Basicly when your argument is this Show nested quote + And the one that I've advocated is based on tithing, because I think God is a pretty fair guy. Your doing it wrong That is Republican candidate Carson for those who don't recognize the quote.
That's an actual quote?? Damn.
Beyond disagreeing with him on mostly everything, I have no idea how he's a halfway legitimate contender right now. He's just so...blah
|
On October 08 2015 01:56 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 01:55 Gorsameth wrote:On October 08 2015 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2015 00:58 Yoav wrote:On October 07 2015 15:55 Kickstart wrote:
Religion in any form should be kept out of politics, but that will never happen.
But what does this really mean? I think most people take this to mean never using god/jesus/bible as justification for something. Any decision made should be supported in ways that are independent of god/jesus/bible. Basicly when your argument is this And the one that I've advocated is based on tithing, because I think God is a pretty fair guy. Your doing it wrong That is Republican candidate Carson for those who don't recognize the quote. That's an actual quote?? Damn. Beyond disagreeing with him on mostly everything, I have no idea how he's a halfway legitimate contender right now. He's just so...blah
But he's an AFRICAN AMERICA NEUROSURGEON who is DIVERSE and BRILLIANT
|
On October 08 2015 01:56 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 01:55 Gorsameth wrote:On October 08 2015 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:On October 08 2015 00:58 Yoav wrote:On October 07 2015 15:55 Kickstart wrote:
Religion in any form should be kept out of politics, but that will never happen.
But what does this really mean? I think most people take this to mean never using god/jesus/bible as justification for something. Any decision made should be supported in ways that are independent of god/jesus/bible. Basicly when your argument is this And the one that I've advocated is based on tithing, because I think God is a pretty fair guy. Your doing it wrong That is Republican candidate Carson for those who don't recognize the quote. That's an actual quote?? Damn. Beyond disagreeing with him on mostly everything, I have no idea how he's a halfway legitimate contender right now. He's just so...blah
Keep in mind this is the party for which he is trying to win the nomination...
Q16 (Republicans) Do you believe in evolution or
not?
Believe in evolution ..........................................37%
Do not believe in evolution ................................49%
Not sure ..........................................................13%
Q17 (Republicans) Would you support or oppose
establishing Christianity as the national
religion?
Support establishing Christianity as the
national religion............................................... 57%
Oppose establishing Christianity as the
national religion............................................... 30%
Not sure .........................................................13%
Source
Do they even Constitution?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Well unless it's Christianity of course, then it's constitution smonstitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
