|
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 February 14 2014 00:07 BallinWitStalin wrote: In general I don't think I'm opposed to some genetically modified organisms. I don't think that, overall, they are an immediate human health concern. However, there are potential ecological problems with them. There is a very possible danger of some GMOs interbreeding with wild populations. Escaped domesticated salmon, for example, routinely interbreed with wild populations, to the extent that, at the least, the structure of neutral genetic variation in wild populations is now significantly altered. Hybrids from these crosses also typically exhibit reduced fitness, and when you have a large number of these escapees interbreeding with wild populations it might have severe negative demographic implications.
And that's only with domesticated salmon subject to artificial selection. The clusterfuck of unknown consequences if genetically modified fish escaped (both genetic impacts on natural populations and ecological impacts of essentially novel invasive species) makes me very skeptical about any kind of aquaculture involving GMO fish that is not in a completely isolated and contained environment.
The same can apply to a ton of other GMO organisms capable of escaping into natural environments. This is a really good argument btw. Just wanted to say that.
|
Rhode Island state Sen. Joshua Miller (D) and state Rep. Edith Ajello (D) introduced the Marijuana Regulation, Control and Taxation Act on Wednesday, a bill that would make Rhode Island the third state -- after Colorado and Washington -- to legalize recreational marijuana for adults 21 and older.
"Marijuana prohibition has been a long-term failure," Miller said in a statement Wednesday. "Forcing marijuana into the underground market ensures authorities have no control of the product. Regulating marijuana would allow the product to be sold safely and responsibly by legitimate businesses in appropriate locations."
The initiative would permit possession of marijuana up to one ounce, in addition to legalizing cultivation of the plant. Adults 21 and older would be allowed to grow no more than two marijuana plants "in an enclosed, locked space," according to the press release. The sale of wholesale marijuana would be subject to an excise tax of up to $50 per ounce in addition to a 10-percent sales tax on retail sales.
"Regulation allows us to create barriers to teen access, such as ID checks and serious penalties for selling to those under 21," Ajello said. "Taxing marijuana sales will generate tens of millions of dollars in much-needed tax revenue for the state."
Source
|
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/13/world/europe/belgium-euthanasia-law-children/
+ Show Spoiler +Belgium: (CNN) -- Does a terminally ill child in intolerable pain have a right to die? Belgian lawmakers said yes. The lower house of the Belgian Parliament adopted a bill that extends the right to euthanasia for minors, the Parliament said Thursday on its official Twitter account. The law passed 86 to 44 with 12 abstentions. That followed a vote by the country's Senate in December supporting the measure. The next step would see the bill go to the king, Philippe, to be signed into law. The euthanasia bill is widely supported -- but has stoked fierce opposition from critics. Belgium legalized euthanasia in 2002 for those in "constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated." Minors were included in the original proposals but were left out of the final legislation for political reasons. The new bill would extend the "right to die" to those under the age of 18 only under certain strict conditions, including that the child is judged able to understand what euthanasia means. Consent of parents or guardians must also be given. Belgium's controversial euthanasia law Professor: Doctors should not be killing Belgian lawmaker backs child euthanasia law Mother Linda van Roy, from Schilde, Belgium, is among those backing the bill. She could do nothing to help her terminally ill baby, Ella-Louise, in the last hours of her life. Ella-Louise, who was 10 months old when she died just over two years ago, would never have qualified for euthanasia. But her mother had to watch as her baby -- who had Krabbe disease, a rare and terminal genetic mutation that damages the nervous system -- slowly faded away under palliative sedation, food and liquid withheld so her suffering was not further prolonged. Children should 'have a choice' "That whole period of sedation, you always need to give more and more medication, and you start asking questions. And you say, 'What's the use of keeping this baby alive?' " van Roy said. She wishes she could have administered a fatal dose of medication to make the end of her daughter's short life come more quickly. That's why she's campaigning for a change to Belgium's euthanasia laws, to give the choice of ending their suffering to older children whose bodies are wracked with pain. "We want for those children to be able to talk about euthanasia and to ask those questions and if they really want to say, 'Stop, this is it, I don't want it anymore,' that they can have a choice," van Roy said. Pediatrician Gerlant van Berlae of the Free University of Brussels is among the medical professionals backing the change in the law. He told CNN that in practice it would make little difference. Ethics of euthanasia Deaf twins choose death over blindness "Doctors do terminate lives, of children as well as adults," he said. "But today it is done in, let's say, a 'gray zone,' or in the dark, because it is illegal." Pediatricians: No urgent need for this law However, 175 pediatricians signed an open letter Thursday urging more time for reflection before any decision is made. The letter argues that the law "responds to no real demand" and that most medical teams caring for terminally ill children would recognize that none of their patients has made a spontaneous and voluntary demand for euthanasia. Meanwhile, medical advances mean that effective palliative care is available and that children do not suffer as they approach death. Extending the "right to die" to minors will only add to the stress and pain of families at a difficult time, it said. The letter also questions how any objective judgment can be made on a child's ability to understand what's at stake. The political process has created a "false impression" that a change to the law is urgently needed -- but in reality "the situation in our country is far from being dramatic," the doctors say. Others also question whether children have the capacity to take this most final of decisions for themselves. Palliative nurse Sonja Develter, who specializes in end-of-life care for children, told CNN she is concerned that giving children a choice would mean they made decisions based on what they thought their families wanted to hear, and that it would be a terrible strain for children who may already feel they are a burden to their caregivers. 'If you leave, you leave forever' Izabela Sacewicz has Huntington's disease, a neurological disease that drastically reduces life expectancy in children. Eight years ago she was a bubbling, active child -- top of her class, according to her mother, Iwona. Having recently turned 18, she can't eat or walk without help. She finds it difficult to speak, but her mind is still her own. In a painful exchange, her mother explains to her what euthanasia is, using the simplest terms she can think of. "Euthanasia means if you are unwell, you are so unhappy that you don't want to stay here, you want to leave, to go high up to God," she says. "But if you leave, you leave forever." Izabela listens, the strain showing on her face. "Do you think it's good, or not good?" her mother asks. "It's not good," she replies, the words barely audible. Iwona says that with enough support, no parent would think of euthanasia -- and that Belgium's lawmakers should instead focus on providing better support for families caring for terminally ill children. Supporters insist the measure is more a matter of principle than anything else -- and that only a small number of children will ever, in practice, ask to end their lives through euthanasia. Under its strict guidelines, no doctor would be forced to carry out euthanasia against his or her will and the child would always have the option of palliative treatment. A child psychologist or psychiatrist would have to examine the child to make sure he or she is capable of making the decision. In the Netherlands, where children have been able to request euthanasia with parental consent since 2002, only five children have ever done so. Interactive: Euthanasia and the right to die around the world Read: Opinion: Euthanasia: We can live without it ... Read: Opinion: Euthanasia: Hope you never need it, but be glad the option is there CNN's Bryony Jones contributed to this report.
I could get into a fairly argument as to why I agree with this law but I think there are sufficient safeguards to make it work.
|
On February 14 2014 03:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2014 03:04 Adreme wrote:On February 14 2014 02:58 TheFish7 wrote: That's why I asked; it just doesn't make sense. A foreign company (a good company from a country that is our ally) wants to create 1500 jobs in the US, when in all likelihood they could do it cheaper somewhere else. And Republicans want to sabotage this? The republican goal in this is to hurt the union because unions by and large support democrats (for fairly obvious reasons in most cases) and TN wants to make the party stronger to hurting the organization that would raise money against them makes perfect sense. Why would unemployed people vote republican? They'd be shooting their own foot. Employed people, unionized or not, should have a better incentive for voting GOP, right? Or am I assuming rationality where there is none to be found?
I believe they are taking the assumption that the workers will cave to the threat and vote to not join.
|
On February 14 2014 06:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Rhode Island state Sen. Joshua Miller (D) and state Rep. Edith Ajello (D) introduced the Marijuana Regulation, Control and Taxation Act on Wednesday, a bill that would make Rhode Island the third state -- after Colorado and Washington -- to legalize recreational marijuana for adults 21 and older.
"Marijuana prohibition has been a long-term failure," Miller said in a statement Wednesday. "Forcing marijuana into the underground market ensures authorities have no control of the product. Regulating marijuana would allow the product to be sold safely and responsibly by legitimate businesses in appropriate locations."
The initiative would permit possession of marijuana up to one ounce, in addition to legalizing cultivation of the plant. Adults 21 and older would be allowed to grow no more than two marijuana plants "in an enclosed, locked space," according to the press release. The sale of wholesale marijuana would be subject to an excise tax of up to $50 per ounce in addition to a 10-percent sales tax on retail sales.
"Regulation allows us to create barriers to teen access, such as ID checks and serious penalties for selling to those under 21," Ajello said. "Taxing marijuana sales will generate tens of millions of dollars in much-needed tax revenue for the state." Source
So how much trouble would I get in for transporting some of that good shit across state lines?
|
Plastic bags are the modern environmental scourge — piling up in landfills, polluting the oceans and choking wildlife. Now, Hawaii has taken a stand by becoming the first U.S. state to ban plastic bags at checkout counters.
Hawaii has always valued the land, or "Aina," so the step isn't too surprising. Four of the state's five counties have passed plastic bag bans (Hawaii's Kalawao County, the only outlier, is hardly populated), the Huffington Post reported. "Being a marine state, perhaps, we are exposed more directly to the impacts of plastic pollution and the damage it does to our environment," Robert Harris, director of the Sierra Club's Hawaii chapter, said in 2012, according to the Huffington Post.
Customers can bring their own reusable bags to local shops and restaurants, or use paper bags. Shops will still provide plastic bags for bulk items such as meat, grains or fresh produce. The islands of Maui, Kauai and the Big Island have already banned plastic bags, and Oahu will ban them starting July 2015. Stores and restaurants on the Big Island had been charging customers for plastic bags for a year.
Source
|
Interesting - in my experience, most countries that try to phase out plastic bags still allow them to be available for a cost, rather than outright banning them. Then again, Hawaii's surrounding environment differs considerably from say, Colorado.
|
|
The news that cable and news giant Comcast has struck a deal to purchase Time Warner, another large cable business, has raised concerns over market concentration. Observers note that the combined company, even if it divests some holdings, would create monopoly-like conditions for the industry.
Many are predicting a lobbying blitz by both companies to pressure governments officials to accept the deal. When Comcast purchased NBC Universal, lobbyists were hired to ensure the merger went through. Critics charge that the payments went beyond the traditional influence industry: after signing off on the Comcast-NBC deal, FCC Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker was hired by Comcast for an undisclosed amount.
Could the revolving door shape the antitrust enforcement for the proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner? Republic Report looked into the officials responsible for overseeing antitrust enforcement, and found that at least two have close ties to Comcast.
The recently installed head of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, William Baer, was a lawyer representing GE and NBC in their push for the merger with Comcast. At the time, Baer was an attorney with the firm Arnold & Porter. To his credit, Baer said last month that he is skeptical of further consolidation of the cable market. Disclosures reviewed by Republic Report show that Baer will continue receiving payments from Arnold & Porter for the next eleven years as part of his retirement package.
Source
|
Comparing it to segregation is hyperbole. A lot of it.
HB 2453, as amended, would create new law to prohibit an individual or religious entity from being required by any governmental entity to do anything with respect to activities identified in the bill, if contrary to an individual’s or religious entity’s sincerely held religious belief regarding sex or gender.
If an individual were employed by a governmental entity or non-religious entity, and that individual declined to provide a lawful service otherwise consistent with that entity’s duties or policies, then the employer providing such service, in directing the performance of such service, would be required to promptly provide another employee to provide the service or otherwise ensure the service was provided, if it could be done without undue hardship to the employer.
It's constitutional under the first amendment. Even if you disagree you should be able to see why they could argue that stance. The left's rhetoric continues to display that they can't even IMAGINE anyone disagreeing with them without being a racist homophobe.
|
United States42693 Posts
The degree of sincerity with which a person believes another group to be inferior has never before been important in judging whether or not they're allowed to discriminate. Nobody doubts that homophobes are serious about, we just don't see how that's different from how serious racists were about racism. Sincerity does not excuse discrimination.
|
On February 14 2014 11:47 KwarK wrote: The degree of sincerity with which a person believes another group to be inferior has never before been important in judging whether or not they're allowed to discriminate. Nobody doubts that homophobes are serious about, we just don't see how that's different from how serious racists were about racism. Sincerity does not excuse discrimination.
Once again, displaying that all anyone here knows are talking points and stereotypes.
I personally don't know of anyone who believes gays to be "inferior" like people did about blacks. They don't think they are incompetent, they DO think gays can provide for themselves, they DO think they are the same "race" (human)- please tell me in what way they think gays are "inferior."
They simply believe they are sinners (like they believe EVERYONE is), and they do NOT want the state to force them into participating or condoning what they believe to be sinful activity. They want to keep the (in their view) sacred institution of marriage as ordained by God Himself. I don't actually know of any "haters" or bigots. I don't know a single person who wants them put to death like Westboro and the Islamic countries advocate.
Are there people who believe gays to be from Satan himself (Westboro?) Yes. And every major Christian, Mormon, etc denomination has denounced their language.
I know that it's really fun to exaggerate, but to compare this to what blacks went through is absurd.
|
United States42693 Posts
So saying that a homosexual is intrinsically sinful and choosing not to serve them on the base of this innate quality compared to a heterosexual isn't discrimination according to you?
I'm not parodying your view, I am simply describing it. It is the straw man you're accusing me of making. These people are saying they believe that a group is bad and do not want to give them the same services they give anyone not a member of this group. Given homosexuality appears to be genetic and certainly isn't a choice I can't see how this is possibly defensible without giving any sincerely held belief license to discriminate.
Homosexuals don't have to be enslaved for discrimination against them to be wrong. I wasn't saying their experience is identical to that of black Americans, I was pointing out that the idea that sincerity is a defence of discrimination has already been discredited.
There is literally no difference between protecting the refusal to recognise gay marriages and protecting the refusal to recognise interracial marriages. In 30 years time you'll be as ridiculed as the opponents of race mixing are, and for the same reasons.
|
On February 14 2014 11:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2014 11:47 KwarK wrote: The degree of sincerity with which a person believes another group to be inferior has never before been important in judging whether or not they're allowed to discriminate. Nobody doubts that homophobes are serious about, we just don't see how that's different from how serious racists were about racism. Sincerity does not excuse discrimination. Once again, displaying that all anyone here knows are talking points and stereotypes. I personally don't know of anyone who believes gays to be "inferior" like people did about blacks. They don't think they are incompetent, they DO think gays can provide for themselves, they DO think they are the same "race" (human)- please tell me in what way they think gays are "inferior." They simply believe they are sinners (like they believe EVERYONE is), and they do NOT want the state to force them into participating or condoning what they believe to be sinful activity. They want to keep the (in their view) sacred institution of marriage as ordained by God Himself. I don't actually know of any "haters" or bigots. I don't know a single person who wants them put to death like Westboro and the Islamic countries advocate. Are there people who believe gays to be from Satan himself (Westboro?) Yes. And every major Christian, Mormon, etc denomination has denounced their language. I know that it's really fun to exaggerate, but to compare this to what blacks went through is absurd. So the current state of Kansas is that gay people are currently fucking in front of religious people at their places of work, and this is a law which addresses that issue? I know it's fun to exaggerate, but to pretend that the inability to OPENLY discriminate against gay people is causing these people to suffer is Reefer Madness-level bullshit.
|
On February 14 2014 11:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2014 11:47 KwarK wrote: The degree of sincerity with which a person believes another group to be inferior has never before been important in judging whether or not they're allowed to discriminate. Nobody doubts that homophobes are serious about, we just don't see how that's different from how serious racists were about racism. Sincerity does not excuse discrimination. Once again, displaying that all anyone here knows are talking points and stereotypes. I personally don't know of anyone who believes gays to be "inferior" like people did about blacks. They don't think they are incompetent, they DO think gays can provide for themselves, they DO think they are the same "race" (human)- please tell me in what way they think gays are "inferior." They simply believe they are sinners (like they believe EVERYONE is), and they do NOT want the state to force them into participating or condoning what they believe to be sinful activity. They want to keep the (in their view) sacred institution of marriage as ordained by God Himself. I don't actually know of any "haters" or bigots. I don't know a single person who wants them put to death like Westboro and the Islamic countries advocate. Are there people who believe gays to be from Satan himself (Westboro?) Yes. And every major Christian, Mormon, etc denomination has denounced their language. I know that it's really fun to exaggerate, but to compare this to what blacks went through is absurd.
If they thought they were human they would give them the same LEGAL (hint: marriage is a legal institution) rights as other humans.
|
On February 14 2014 12:10 KwarK wrote: So saying that a homosexual is intrinsically sinful and choosing not to serve them on the base of this innate quality compared to a heterosexual isn't discrimination according to you?
I'm not parodying your view, I am simply describing it. It is the straw man you're accusing me of making. These people are saying they believe that a group is bad and do not want to give them the same services they give anyone not a member of this group. Given homosexuality appears to be genetic and certainly isn't a choice I can't see how this is possibly defensible without giving any sincerely held belief license to discriminate.
Homosexuals don't have to be enslaved for discrimination against them to be wrong. I wasn't saying their experience is identical to that of black Americans, I was pointing out that the idea that sincerity is a defence of discrimination has already been discredited.
There is literally no difference between protecting the refusal to recognise gay marriages and protecting the refusal to recognise interracial marriages. In 30 years time you'll be as ridiculed as the opponents of race mixing are, and for the same reasons.
First of all, my own opinions are irrelevant. I think you are right, whatever my own moral stance, this is the way things are moving and in 30 yrs we won't have to deal with this stupid topic, the left will move on to some new minority they can use to their advantage. Almost every democrat politician a decade ago was anti-gay marriage. Then they needed a cause, since the economy was good under Bush, and now under Obama still sucks. But that's off topic.
I'm not actually going to get into the specifics of various doctrines, but the view is not that gays are anymore "intrinsically sinful" than they believe you to be as a human person. At least that's the educated religious view. It condemns the activity (as it does sex outside of marriage, rape, etc) as being wrong, not that wanting it is wrong or makes you hell bound. It's no more of an innate quality as any other sinful disposition, which according Christianity, humanity has many of
The Christian law also has things against murder, theft, adultery, etc. They would not want to do be forced into those things either. My point is not to compare homosexual activity to murder, but to emphasize that all these things stem from the belief that certain activities are wrong, regardless of who does them. Gay sex is just as wrong to them between two straights as it is between two gays.
If they don't want to host a gay marriage, then they shouldn't have to. (And why would you want to get married there anyway?). If you don't want to bake them a cake, then why should you be forced to? Is not doing so some sort of oppression? Are there not cakemakers everywhere? It's not like the military or some well armed civilian said, "nah, I don't want to save his life, he's gay."
The religious DON'T have anything against a "group." That, again, is just the convenient box to use when you don't actually know anything about the other side. They don't want to be forced to perform a gay marriage if it was two straight people who just decided to try it out! It's the activity, not the person.
This is all markedly different than with racism, which was based on the idea that skin color or place of origin placed you below the level of human.
So the current state of Kansas is that gay people are currently fucking in front of religious people at their places of work, and this is a law which addresses that issue?
No? It's to prevent those institutions from having to partake in any activity that they find to be wrong.
If they thought they were human they would give them the same LEGAL (hint: marriage is a legal institution) rights as other humans.
They believe it is a religious institution first, governmental second.
I'm not saying they are right. I'm saying that you should understand what the other side says (and understand some history) before you make absurd statements.
|
United States42693 Posts
Of course I understand their point of view. They are sincerely homophobic and as such they find being forced to interact with homosexuals deeply uncomfortable and conflicting with their world view. I just don't see why their bigotry deserves legal protection, especially when bigotry and the right to discriminate based upon sincere religious opposition has been rejected elsewhere.
You have the right to sincerely oppose something. What you should not have is legal protection to discriminate based upon those beliefs. You don't have it anywhere else, it shouldn't apply here.
Also wtf is this "yeah the Democrats are just playing politics by giving a significant minority of the population the same rights as everyone else enjoys, typical liberals" bullshit. If 10% of your population is routinely discriminated against then it is the job of politicians to sort that shit out. They made your country a little less shit and you're whining about them doing it to play politics, no shit they scored political points by making shit better, that's literally what they're for. It's like saying "well yeah those firefighters went around putting out fires but they only did it because they thought it'd make people happy with the job they're doing".
|
The most ridiculous part is that like literally the first thing in the constitution(which American conservatives keep so sacred) says "hey, don't mix up the state and religion!"
No one wants to stop religious people from celebrating marriage privately, but I think it's ridiculous that legal marriage gives benefits to heterosexual people that homosexual people can't get.
Also I don't believe anyone who says that he knows a ton of religious people and not a single one of them has resentments towards homosexuals. Probably two thirds of all the religious people I've met think homosexuality is wrong, unnatural and should be kept out of school and public.
|
On February 14 2014 12:41 KwarK wrote: Of course I understand their point of view. They are sincerely homophobic and as such they find being forced to interact with homosexuals deeply uncomfortable and conflicting with their world view. I just don't see why their bigotry deserves legal protection, especially when bigotry and the right to discriminate based upon sincere religious opposition has been rejected elsewhere.
You have the right to sincerely oppose something. What you should not have is legal protection to discriminate based upon those beliefs. You don't have it anywhere else, it shouldn't apply here.
You don't actually get it. You think they are scared. Maybe some are, but no articulate person I've ever heard is. I think you are just assuming.
Do you think these institutions don't even want to see gays? No, they don't want to do anything that condones the activity, done by straight or gay people. Unless it's a church, these companies (such as Chick-fil-A) WILL hire and WILL serve gays, maybe unless asked to cater a gay wedding. It's NOT about the people. It's about the activity. That's really all there is to say about the the topic to be honest- if everyone is just going to continue the droning "they hate gay people!" then there is no point.
So no, you don't get it. But I don't expect anything else here, where most haven't actually interacted and discussed the topic with educated Christians, Mormons, etc and just get their opinion from the media and manipulating politicians (who either went through the quickest values change in history or just care about pandering).
Actually, private entities not associated with government are allowed to discriminate/refuse service, although the Court's use of the Commerce Clause has changed things.
Also I don't believe anyone who says that he knows a ton of religious people and not a single one of them has resentments towards homosexuals. Probably two thirds of all the religious people I've met think homosexuality is wrong, unnatural and should be kept out of school and public. That's not the same as hating gays, which is what I was talking about. It's hating the activity.
The most ridiculous part is that like literally the first thing in the constitution(which American conservatives keep so sacred) says "hey, don't mix up the state and religion!"
Which is why many religious people want the government out of marriage all together. But we are talking about private citizens and their businesses, not the states. If you read the bill, the state is PROHIBITED from discriminating.
|
United States42693 Posts
If they wouldn't be allowed to refuse to cater to an interracial marriage they shouldn't be allowed to refuse to cater to a gay marriage. It's that simple.
|
|
|
|