# Hobby Lobby not supporting birthcontrol or something



## Lomberdia (Jul 2, 2014)

I just learned about something hobby lobby is doing. Here's a link: http://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...th-control-coverage-employees&h=cAQFzI1O1&s=1

It's not a rant to me because this happens a lot now. Gettin all huffy about it won't change anything. Remember chik-a-filet? They got massive support and boost in sales. I people want to fight it just boycott it without making it big news. I really don't care and I'll keep using hobby lobby since they are cheap and good quality stuff. 

People aay say they 'have no right' and 'religion shouldn't be part of a business' and I laugh. The owners can do what the hell they want with their company. YOU don have a right to tell them what they should do with their company. Don't like it? Goto another art store. Easy. People are too easy to rile up and offend now-a-days.


----------



## mcjoel (Jul 2, 2014)

Oh goodie another thread that's probably going to turn into a word wall debate. 
My opinion on the matter is i have none as I don't have all the facts.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 2, 2014)

So it's A.C. Moore for pigfuckers?


----------



## Lomberdia (Jul 2, 2014)

Pretty sure the link says it all. I don't really care what hobby lobby does but a google search on the boycott should bring up the info you need.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jul 2, 2014)

I'm sorry but I cant stand that store. The one by me tries to preach at me and give me "literature" Ive been once cuz I got a 40 percent off cupon in the mail. I was wearing my slayer shirt so they assumes I was a devil worshipper.  When I tried to explain this dumbshit employee kept interrupting me and wouldnt let me have any say in the matter. So fuck em. Ill stick to Aaron Bros ans Steele.


----------



## Misomie (Jul 2, 2014)

Hobby Lobby won this two days ago. Pretty much any company can now use their religious background to not provide 4 types of contraception including the morning after pill and IUDs. 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hobby-lobby-wins-contraceptive-ruling-supreme-court/story?id=24364311

Just another example of religion getting away with garbage using their false science. What's gross about it is you don't know what they'll target next. Companies will probably now try to chip away at other required services to save a quick buck.


----------



## Lomberdia (Jul 2, 2014)

The one near me doesn't but then again I end convos with 'Have a blessed day' so I guess that stopped them. Mormons don't take no for an answer. Even when I tell them I have a church, it's not good enough for them. It has to be THEIR church. Mormons.....


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 2, 2014)

Christians wonder why more and more people are rejecting their religion


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jul 2, 2014)

Lomberdia said:


> The one near me doesn't but then again I end convos with 'Have a blessed day' so I guess that stopped them. Mormons don't take no for an answer. Even when I tell them I have a church, it's not good enough for them. It has to be THEIR church. Mormons.....


Everytime mormons come to my door I tell them Im a satanist and close the door. Sure enough they didnt go away and knocked again,  so I threw on my fursuit head and screamed RRRRAAAAWRRRR!. They quickly left and I havnt seen one since, lol.


----------



## Lomberdia (Jul 2, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Christians wonder why more and more people are rejecting their religion


I missed it, where did it say they were christian? Christians have been disliked forever. Nothing new.


----------



## Nordo Huskamute (Jul 3, 2014)

Lomberdia said:


> I missed it, where did it say they were christian? Christians have been disliked forever. Nothing new.



YAY we agree 100% on this one.  They are a private business and can do whatever they want.  People don't have to shop or work there if they don't like it.  Too many people interpret freedom *of* religion to mean freedom *from* religion and that simply is not the case.  If providing these services goes against the beliefs of those doing the providing then who is the government to tell them they have to? Is that not a form of forcing ones beliefs on another?  Its not the Feds place to be involved either way.


----------



## Misomie (Jul 3, 2014)

Nordo Huskamute said:


> YAY we agree 100% on this one.  They are a private business and can do whatever they want.  People don't have to shop or work there if they don't like it.  Too many people interpret freedom *of* religion to mean freedom *from* religion and that simply is not the case.  If providing these services goes against the beliefs of those doing the providing then who is the government to tell them they have to? Is that not a form of forcing ones beliefs on another?  Its not the Feds place to be involved either way.



Screw religion. This ruling is letting them enforce their beliefs rather than let their employees choose what they want. If the government starts pardoning more and more religious choices (especially in the medical field) this can lead to a slippery slope fast. Not to mention that as a company owner, you're pretty much now responsible for your employees well being (paycheck, healthcare, ect). Way to shirk responsibilities. 

I hate how companies continue to kick their employees and treat them like trash. They're pretty much allowed to now because of the current state of the job market. Also, boycotting really only works on small business. The big companies don't really care because they can afford to function without your support and still get plenty of support from people that don't care or that can't afford to boycott them (ie. Walmart).


----------



## Saga (Jul 3, 2014)

A.C. Moore 4 lyfe homeboy they don't have hobby lobby here


----------



## Ayattar (Jul 3, 2014)

d.batty said:


> Everytime mormons come to my door I tell them Im a satanist and close the door. Sure enough they didnt go away and knocked again,  so I threw on my fursuit head and screamed RRRRAAAAWRRRR!. They quickly left and I havnt seen one since, lol.



Lol. Had a similar situation. Back then I still had long hair (over 60cm), a beard, was wearing worn, torn and dirty clothes, black shirt with this print and had a chainsaw in my hand (was oiling moving parts) 

Five years have passed and not a single visit.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jul 3, 2014)

My husbands friend has a shaved head with a big ass beard and tons of tats. He always answers the door to them with his claymore and screams "For Odin!" And they run away. I was there once for that and im pretty sure I pissed a little laughing so hard.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 3, 2014)

Misomie said:


> Screw religion. This ruling is letting them enforce their beliefs rather than let their employees choose what they want. If the government starts pardoning more and more religious choices (especially in the medical field) this can lead to a slippery slope fast. Not to mention that as a company owner, you're pretty much now responsible for your employees well being (paycheck, healthcare, ect). Way to shirk responsibilities.
> 
> I hate how companies continue to kick their employees and treat them like trash. They're pretty much allowed to now because of the current state of the job market. Also, boycotting really only works on small business. The big companies don't really care because they can afford to function without your support and still get plenty of support from people that don't care or that can't afford to boycott them (ie. Walmart).




Actually the only thing that happened is Hobby Lobby gets away now with not covering 4 types of birthcontrol that basically kill off a fertilized egg. That's it. They're still down with covering the 16 other kinds. Also, emplpoyees can still purchase and use those 4 types, they just aren't covered. 

The way people are talking about this you'd think HL not only said no on those 4 types, but also something like they'd terminate anyone using it, which isn't the case at all.

Also nice slippery slope there. I know you even said "This could lead to a slippery slope" but still, I don't think we should be quick to think that corporations are gonna get away with ANYTHING because of their religion - which is what you and countless other commentators on news sites make it sound like will happen.


----------



## Misomie (Jul 3, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Actually the only thing that happened is Hobby Lobby gets away now with not covering 4 types of birthcontrol that basically kill off a fertilized egg. That's it. They're still down with covering the 16 other kinds. Also, emplpoyees can still purchase and use those 4 types, they just aren't covered.
> 
> The way people are talking about this you'd think HL not only said no on those 4 types, but also something like they'd terminate anyone using it, which isn't the case at all.



Since the Supreme Court decided it was allowed, any company can now claim the same thing and get away with it as there is now a precedent. I know people can still buy the care themselves but I believe it should be covered. Heck, all healthcare should be covered. What I'm mainly upset over is that I can see other companies trying to pull the same garbage. 

I doubt it will stop here.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 3, 2014)

Misomie said:


> Since the Supreme Court decided it was allowed, any company can now claim the same thing and get away with it as there is now a precedent. I know people can still buy the care themselves but I believe it should be covered. Heck, all healthcare should be covered. What I'm mainly upset over is that I can see other companies trying to pull the same garbage.
> 
> I doubt it will stop here.



I'm just curious - what do you think they'll try to do, exactly?


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Jul 3, 2014)

I'm not sure why people are so bottomburned about it.

It's not like they're stopping you from buying your own contraception...


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 3, 2014)

Gibby said:


> I'm not sure why people are so bottomburned about it.
> 
> It's not like they're stopping you from buying your own contraception...




Misinformation, mainly. And this concept that somehow saying that "We won't cover these kinds of birth control due to religious reasons" but letting people buy it still is "OMFG SHOVING RELIGION DOWN OUR THROATS!!". Then there's also the idea, like with Mosomie, that a company should provide for their employees, as far as health and what not is concerned.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 3, 2014)

In before CaptainCool.


----------



## Misomie (Jul 3, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I'm just curious - what do you think they'll try to do, exactly?



The other companies? I have no clue what they'll try to do. However, I don't trust them. I don't trust that they'll stop cutting healthcare to save a few bucks in the name of religion. I don't trust them to stop trying to find loopholes to get the other methods unsupported as well. 

Well, people have been trying to ban abortion for awhile and with the lack of the support for the "abortion pill" is a step in their direction. After reading about what the parties and such thought, they are going to continue to push for religious freedoms and pro life. Both of which are *forcing* their beliefs on people and interfering with people's daily lives. They shouldn't be tolerated. People have a right to make their own choices and these kinds of rulings deny that. 

I highly doubt the company's employees are popping those abortion pills regularly enough to step on their "beliefs". They are meant in case of emergency (ie condom breakage, forgotten pill, ect) and used as such. The company simply decided to be a scumbag and cut a service the government mandated to try and help make sure everyone gets the medical care they need. I'm just really sick of people trying to make sure others don't get the care they need. Oh, they don't have the money for it? Oh well, screw them. I don't care. So long as I keep my benefits I'm happy.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 3, 2014)

Misomie said:


> The other companies? I have no clue what they'll try to do. However, I don't trust them. I don't trust that they'll stop cutting healthcare to save a few bucks in the name of religion. I don't trust them to stop trying to find loopholes to get the other methods unsupported as well.
> 
> Well, people have been trying to ban abortion for awhile and with the lack of the support for the "abortion pill" is a step in their direction. After reading about what the parties and such thought, they are going to continue to push for religious freedoms and pro life. Both of which are *forcing* their beliefs on people and interfering with people's daily lives. They shouldn't be tolerated. People have a right to make their own choices and these kinds of rulings deny that.
> 
> I highly doubt the company's employees are popping those abortion pills regularly enough to step on their "beliefs". They are meant in case of emergency (ie condom breakage, forgotten pill, ect) and used as such. The company simply decided to be a scumbag and cut a service the government mandated to try and help make sure everyone gets the medical care they need. I'm just really sick of people trying to make sure others don't get the care they need. Oh, they don't have the money for it? Oh well, screw them. I don't care. So long as I keep my benefits I'm happy.



Again, it's not the employees using it that's offending their beliefs -- it's the fact that they have to PROVIDE it to their employees. Employees can still PURCHASE and USE it, it's just that HL won't PROVIDE it. The way you're making it sound like it's that HL is trying to curb people from using those 4 pills altogether. But nope, they just don't want to give it to their employees -they seem ok with letting their employees use it.


----------



## Misomie (Jul 3, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Again, it's not the employees using it that's offending their beliefs -- it's the fact that they have to PROVIDE it to their employees. Employees can still PURCHASE and USE it, it's just that HL won't PROVIDE it. The way you're making it sound like it's that HL is trying to curb people from using those 4 pills altogether. But nope, they just don't want to give it to their employees -they seem ok with letting their employees use it.



I KNOW THEY CAN STILL BUY IT THEMSELVES! THAT'S NOT THE POINT!

The point is that people can ignore laws because of a stupid fairytale they believe. Laws that were put in place to HELP people. 

These pills cost anywhere from $10-$50 (for and adult) and $75-$200 (for a minor). Alone they don't seem like they're that expensive, right? Couple that with car payments, mortgage/rent, water, PG&E, electricity, taxes, food, clothes, gas, and all those other bills and it becomes freaking expensive for the average worker. Thank goodness for Planned Parenthood because the people affected by this ruling are probably going to need their help when they can't afford it because their employer. Heavens no his little make-believe rights got trampled on. Oh noes!

The ruling also covers IUDs. Some women can't take hormonal birth control and require these either for medical reasons or as a contraception. These can cost from $500-$900. Sure they are pretty long term, but that's still a lot of money. Especially if you're on a budget like most people are these days. 

It's just a huge slap in the face and extremely disrespectful to your own employees. Employees you're probably paying minimum wage to in the first place. 

Of course I'm outraged. Not to mention I freaking use birth control because I need it because of medical reasons. Not to prevent pregnancy, but to treat an extremely painful medical condition. If this stupid movement continues it can very well effect me. If the Supreme Courts decide they are pro fairytales and continue on the same path I could possibly loose my coverage. Mine costs $70 a visit (w/o insurance) so I wouldn't be able to afford it. I have every right to feel threatened and offended.


----------



## Nordo Huskamute (Jul 3, 2014)

Misomie said:


> Screw religion. This ruling is letting them enforce their beliefs rather than let their employees choose what they want. If the government starts pardoning more and more religious choices (especially in the medical field) this can lead to a slippery slope fast. Not to mention that as a company owner, you're pretty much now responsible for your employees well being (paycheck, healthcare, ect). Way to shirk responsibilities.
> 
> I hate how companies continue to kick their employees and treat them like trash. They're pretty much allowed to now because of the current state of the job market. Also, boycotting really only works on small business. The big companies don't really care because they can afford to function without your support and still get plenty of support from people that don't care or that can't afford to boycott them (ie. Walmart).



So you'd rather force your beliefs on that company? Its OK when you do it, right? They aren't keeping anybody from choosing to do anything, they are just allowed, rightfully, to not have to pay for it.  Theres this concept, you might have heard of it, called PAY FOR YOUR OWN SHIT.  No employer should be coerced by government into paying anything it doesn't want to. 



Misomie said:


> Since the Supreme Court decided it was allowed,  any company can now claim the same thing and get away with it as there  is now a precedent. I know people can still buy the care themselves but I  believe it should be covered. Heck, all healthcare should be covered.  What I'm mainly upset over is that I can see other companies trying to  pull the same garbage.
> 
> I doubt it will stop here.


The court did what they are expected to, uphold the law.  Religious exemptions are well established.  There is nothing new here.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jul 3, 2014)

HAHaha Good. I hope more loopholes can be used to undermine the government.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 3, 2014)

Nordo Huskamute said:


> So you'd rather force your beliefs on that company? Its OK when you do it, right? They aren't keeping anybody from choosing to do anything, they are just allowed, rightfully, to not have to pay for it.  Theres this concept, you might have heard of it, called PAY FOR YOUR OWN SHIT.  No employer should be coerced by government into paying anything it doesn't want to.
> 
> 
> The court did what they are expected to, uphold the law.  Religious exemptions are well established.  There is nothing new here.



This is actually a valid point. Why is it okay for you to force your beliefs on someone (That not only should they provide healthcare coverage, but also provide any and all forms, to hell with your beliefs). 

Also they DID cite a law in their ruling - the Religious Freedom Restoration Act - but I guess citing such laws and making rulings in support of those means that you're suddenly "Pro Fairytales". 

Also Hobby Lobby pays at minumum ABOVE federal min wage at $9/hr; full time gets $14/hr + benefits. So no, none of this "probably minimum wage".

But no, make one ruling in favor of religion and the world falls apart. heaven forbid we try to protect one's religious freedoms for once - regardless of if you believe it's make believe stupid fairy tales.


----------



## Misomie (Jul 3, 2014)

Nordo Huskamute said:


> So you'd rather force your beliefs on that company? Its OK when you do it, right? They aren't keeping anybody from choosing to do anything, they are just allowed, rightfully, to not have to pay for it.  Theres this concept, you might have heard of it, called PAY FOR YOUR OWN SHIT.  No employer should be coerced by government into paying anything it doesn't want to.


The company should not be treated like a person (even though it is). It does not have a soul, a heartbeat, or bleed. Therefore it has no faith in God. Ever since the affordable Health Care Bill came out, companies have been trying to find ways to cut out healthcare coverage. 

So you're saying that companies shouldn't pay taxes then? I'm sure no company wants to pay taxes. Hurry, we must cater to them as well. 



Nordo Huskamute said:


> The court did what they are expected to, uphold the law.  Religious exemptions are well established.  There is nothing new here.



Religion takes a backseat to the greater good and health of the public. This means that if your religion is against vaccines, you can't do jack about it. You have to cover it for your employees as well. What makes this any different? Mind you that the four they didn't want are the same things as what they do allow (IUDs contain progesterone like the pill and the morning after pill is just an amped up regular pill).



Nikolinni said:


> Also they DID cite a law in their ruling - the Religious Freedom  Restoration Act - but I guess citing such laws and making rulings in  support of those means that you're suddenly "Pro Fairytales".


Yeah, I heard about that Act. 


Nikolinni said:


> Also Hobby Lobby pays at minumum ABOVE federal min wage at $9/hr; full  time gets $14/hr + benefits. So no, none of this "probably minimum  wage".


Meh. I expected less from them. 


Nikolinni said:


> But no, make one ruling in favor of religion and the world falls apart.  heaven forbid we try to protect one's religious freedoms for once -  regardless of if you believe it's make believe stupid fairy  tales.


They are stupid when they affect other people that want nothing to do with it.


----------



## Lomberdia (Jul 3, 2014)

Pause:


Misomie said:


> The company should not be treated like a person (even though it is). It does not have a soul, a heartbeat, or bleed. Therefore it has no faith in God. Ever since the affordable Health Care Bill came out, companies have been trying to find ways to cut out healthcare coverage.


 with that, if we are going to pretend a company has no head leader, then companies shouldn't have to provide ANYTHING to its workers. A company is out to make money first and foremost. Companies have been finding loopholes for ages but NO private company should be FORCED by the government to provide anything other than at least min wage. If the government want folks to be healthy they should provide their own healthcare but don't make private companies put out of pocket. If you are going to force them to pay they have the right to decide what they want to spend THEIR money on.



Misomie said:


> So you're saying that companies shouldn't pay taxes then? I'm sure no company wants to pay taxes. Hurry, we must cater to them as well.


Taxes are the state and country's way of saying "we let you open a business here, you pay us for allowing this" that's what taxes are. Basically a "Thank you for letting us live and do our thing". Everyone should pay taxes, its the same as employees paying for their insurance. If they want it, they need to either get what their employer provides or if they want some super fancy name brand, they SHOULD have to pay out of pocket for it.





Misomie said:


> Religion takes a backseat to the greater good and health of the public. This means that if your religion is against vaccines, you can't do jack about it. You have to cover it for your employees as well. What makes this any different? Mind you that the four they didn't want are the same things as what they do allow (IUDs contain progesterone like the pill and the morning after pill is just an amped up regular pill).


Pause again.....

Greater good and health of the public...pffft. Load of bull this is. Complete 100% subjective trash. Who is the greater good for because from the looks of things the greater good is the religious side. So they should ban ALL of it instead of simply 4? HL isn't keeping you from keeping yourself healthy, which is actually YOUR responsibility! If a company didn't want to give vaccines, they shouldn't have to. Plenty of vaccines are free anyway at walgreens and CVS. If you want a fancy vaccine in an off season, pay for it yourself or get different insurance. 

Also since we're keeping in mind that the four drugs HL is against is the same thing as the other pills, why not just get the other pills? still have 12 options and since the 4 are basically irrelevant, why bitch and whine about it? No better than the child crying over getting some generic Cap'n Puffs instead of name brand Cap'n Crunch cereal.




Misomie said:


> Yeah, I heard about that Act.
> They are stupid when they affect other people that want nothing to do with it.



The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a law *gasps* So the court is there to, you guessed it, uphold the law *double gasps!* The courts SHOULDN'T be affected by people's feelings, that's not it's purpose. So when the law is upheld in court for something you support, its all find and dandy but when it does the same thing for something you don't like it's instantly "things should change! nevermind the fact its a law and lets forget other people's right to do what they want with their company! I want my meds!"

Sorry cupcake, doesn't work that way. The employees are welcome to leave the company, they will only be replaced with people who won't cause trouble over their company's policy. If they can't leave due to money reasons, they better put on their big kid pants and suck it up. When they start their own company, they can do what they want but till then its put up or shut up.

People bitch and whine about having other's beliefs shoved down their throats but they like to deny it when their beliefs are being forced onto others. Make excuses like 'greater good' 'its not the same' 'well I need it and it helps me' which are usually ripped to shreds when religion uses those same excuses but suddenly they work now? nope.


----------



## CaptainCool (Jul 3, 2014)

Nordo Huskamute said:


> So you'd rather force your beliefs on that company?



Oh for fucks sake... 
No one is forcing anything on them. THEY ARE IGNORING A LAW BECAUSE OF FAIRY TALES!
Laws stand over personal beliefs. If you are against contraceptives 'BECAUSE GAWD SAYS IT'S WRONG!!!' and the government says you must provide your employees with contraceptives? Well, tough tits!


----------



## Misomie (Jul 3, 2014)

The four contraceptives they don't like are not abortionists. They literally had science against them and won in the name for religion. They had no right to get their panties in a twist over something that wasn't even going against their beliefs. Sounds more like a way to cut healthcare then uphold their beliefs. I'm not going to bother replying to the rest because you guys obviously don't share my view on healthcare. Since it doesn't effect you I understand you could care less. Crush the government! It's evil trash! However, might I remind you it has set a dangerous precedent? The White House has already received a letter from other religious people in which they were asking to ignore the newest lgbt bill so they can fire at will/refuse letting them work for them just because of their sexuality and/or gender belief. Some great thing religion is. I'm for the progression of my country I see a lot of backtracking that might occur and it sickens me.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 3, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Oh for fucks sake...
> No one is forcing anything on them. THEY ARE IGNORING A LAW BECAUSE OF FAIRY TALES!
> Laws stand over personal beliefs. If you are against contraceptives 'BECAUSE GAWD SAYS IT'S WRONG!!!' and the government says you must provide your employees with contraceptives? Well, tough tits!



Ironic that you say this, because a law was brought up during the ruling. 

And what you're just saying there IS forcing beliefs onto someone. It's government using force to get private and closely held businesses to go fully along with something that they don't agree with.



Misomie said:


> The four contraceptives they don't like are not abortionists. They literally had science against them and won in the name for religion. They had no right to get their panties in a twist over something that wasn't even going against their beliefs. Sounds more like a way to cut healthcare then uphold their beliefs. I'm not going to bother replying to the rest because you guys obviously don't share my view on healthcare. Since it doesn't effect you I understand you could care less. Crush the government! It's evil trash! However, might I remind you it has set a dangerous precedent? The White House has already received a letter from other religious people in which they were asking to ignore the newest lgbt bill so they can fire at will/refuse letting them work for them just because of their sexuality and/or gender belief. Some great thing religion is. I'm for the progression of my country I see a lot of backtracking that might occur and it sickens me.



To some, getting rid of a fertilized egg is considered abortion. 

And with me, it's not that "it doesn't effect me so I care less". If you're saying that because I'm male or don't use birth control, I'm sorry but that's not the reason why I hold the opinions that I do. I'm just stating facts, I haven't actually even said if I support or do not support what HL pushed for or the ruling.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Jul 3, 2014)

Lomberdia said:


> Taxes are the state and country's way of saying "we let you open a business here, you pay us for allowing this" that's what taxes are. Basically a "Thank you for letting us live and do our thing".


So Firefighters, Roadbulding, defense, prisons and so on should be privatized? 



Lomberdia said:


> Pause:
> with that, if we are going to pretend a company has no head leader,  then companies shouldn't have to provide ANYTHING to its workers. A  company is out to make money first and foremost. Companies have been  finding loopholes for ages but NO private company should be FORCED by  the government to provide anything other than at least min wage. If the  government want folks to be healthy they should provide their own  healthcare but don't make private companies put out of pocket. If you  are going to force them to pay they have the right to decide what they  want to spend THEIR money on.
> [...]
> Greater good and health of the public...pffft. Load of bull this is. Complete 100% subjective trash. Who is the greater good for because from the looks of things the greater good is the religious side. So they should ban ALL of it instead of simply 4? HL isn't keeping you from keeping yourself healthy, which is actually YOUR responsibility! If a company didn't want to give vaccines, they shouldn't have to. Plenty of vaccines are free anyway at walgreens and CVS. If you want a fancy vaccine in an off season, pay for it yourself or get different insurance.
> ...


So min-wage is the cutoff for socialism in you opinion? Why not more, like Health-service. Or less, get rid of those pesky laws banning treating humans as property, if they can afford to have slaves, why stop them?


----------



## Lomberdia (Jul 3, 2014)

Toboe Moonclaw said:


> So Firefighters, Roadbulding, defense, prisons and so on should be privatized?
> 
> 
> So min-wage is the cutoff for socialism in you opinion? Why not more, like Health-service. Or less, get rid of those pesky laws banning treating humans as property, if they can afford to have slaves, why stop them?


min-wage? HL folks get paid a decent wage. Well their full-time workers. I don't know about part-time. Full-time workers can easily afford their special drugs if they want them if this magical things called 'budgeting' existed in their life. A companies job to its employees is to pay their employees a fair wage to work.

As for the law, don't like it, change it. It's really not that hard to get things rolling. The courts have tossed out and changed laws for ages. Maybe they should just get rid of obamacare all together and make people get private insurance. Maybe the dude who owns HL should shut down all the stores in the country and let all those people go jobless since it's his company. Companies arent people so if the owner's family decides to just let HL sink and screw over 100,000s of people, they are in their right to do so.

Obviously they are legally allowed to do what they do so your options are either shop/work there OR don't.


----------



## Toboe Moonclaw (Jul 3, 2014)

Lomberdia said:


> min-wage? HL folks get paid a decent wage. Well their full-time workers. I don't know about part-time. Full-time workers can easily afford their special drugs if they want them if this magical things called 'budgeting' existed in their life. *A companies job to its employees is to pay their employees a fair wage to work.*


So no answer why that is the cutoff for acceptable socialism, mkay.



Lomberdia said:


> As for the law, don't like it, change it. It's really not that hard to get things rolling. The courts have tossed out and changed laws for ages. Maybe they should just get rid of obamacare all together and make people get private insurance.


Or maybe make it mandatory to have insurance and offer a gov' minimum packet with privat companies competing and employers/employees sharing the bill 50/50?
Or maybe they should kick the "restoration of religious freedom" stuff and interpreting freedom of religion anew (no laws directly targeting religions, no special rights for religions).



Lomberdia said:


> Maybe the dude who owns HL should shut down all the stores in the country and let all those people go jobless since it's his company. Companies arent people so if the owner's family decides to just let HL sink and screw over 100,000s of people, they are in their right to do so.
> 
> Obviously they are legally allowed to do what they do so your options are either shop/work there OR don't.


"Companies aren't people" =>"if they decide to let HL sink[...]they are in their right to do so." 
Uhm... "Non sequitur"?

And yeah, he could screw everybody over, risking screwing himself over. The basic of the "invisible hand" principle: Make it so that the only way to achieve selfish goals is to help with social goals.

And for the sake of stupid internet-arguments: 
Mistreating animals (which aren't people(even in FAF)) is illegal. So that something is not a person does not mean, that you can do everything with it.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 3, 2014)

Lomberdia said:


> I just learned about something hobby lobby is doing. Here's a link: http://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...th-control-coverage-employees&h=cAQFzI1O1&s=1
> 
> It's not a rant to me because this happens a lot now. Gettin all huffy about it won't change anything. Remember chik-a-filet? They got massive support and boost in sales. I people want to fight it just boycott it without making it big news. I really don't care and I'll keep using hobby lobby since they are cheap and good quality stuff.
> 
> People aay say they 'have no right' and 'religion shouldn't be part of a business' and I laugh. The owners can do what the hell they want with their company. YOU don have a right to tell them what they should do with their company. Don't like it? Goto another art store. Easy. People are too easy to rile up and offend now-a-days.



If a modicum of cash for birth control is a requirement for the health of employees, expected of any company regardless of religious affiliation, then yes people do have a platform to voice irritation at a company for demanding special treatment because of their religion. Separation of church and state; the state is not permitted to absolve a company of its normal responsibilities on religious grounds.

Private enterprise is not simply 'herp derp, do whatever you like'. They also have legal and communal responsibilities.



Nikolinni said:


> This is actually a valid point. Why is it okay  for you to force your beliefs on someone (That not only should they  provide healthcare coverage, but also provide any and all forms, to hell  with your beliefs).
> 
> Also they DID cite a law in their ruling - the Religious Freedom  Restoration Act - but I guess citing such laws and making rulings in  support of those means that you're suddenly "Pro Fairytales".
> 
> ...




Fundamentally, companies private or not have a responsibility to provide the necessities to their employees, which includes health care costs in many cases. 

If your religion means you are unable to provide your employees with this, then you're not acting in a professional capacity; you are moralising. 

It's like the muslims who work in supermarkets and refuse to sell people alcohol.



Misomie said:


> The four contraceptives they don't like are not  abortionists. They literally had science against them and won in the  name for religion. They had no right to get their panties in a twist  over something that wasn't even going against their beliefs. Sounds more  like a way to cut healthcare then uphold their beliefs. I'm not going  to bother replying to the rest because you guys obviously don't share my  view on healthcare. Since it doesn't effect you I understand you could  care less. Crush the government! It's evil trash! However, might I  remind you it has set a dangerous precedent? The White House has already  received a letter from other religious people in which they were asking  to ignore the newest lgbt bill so they can fire at will/refuse letting  them work for them just because of their sexuality and/or gender belief.  Some great thing religion is. I'm for the progression of my country I  see a lot of backtracking that might occur and it sickens me.




I think law regarding religious needs to recognise that religious rights do not equate to the absolution of any responsibilities people are expected to have. 

Otherwise religion is merely an excuse to evade the responsibilities expected of us.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jul 3, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Oh for fucks sake...
> No one is forcing anything on them. THEY ARE IGNORING A LAW BECAUSE OF FAIRY TALES!
> Laws stand over personal beliefs. If you are against contraceptives 'BECAUSE GAWD SAYS IT'S WRONG!!!' and the government says you must provide your employees with contraceptives? Well, tough tits!




That is a double edged sword. Same thing can be said about government forcing religion on children in schools. Though tits and all that, that's what the proponents would say. Laws stand over personal beliefs is cute and convenient rhetoric when your faction is in power and passing laws you like, but once they lose, since everyone is so short sighted and think their after party will last forever, all of a sudden a different tune is sang about the role of government in people's lives.


----------



## monochromatic-dragon (Jul 3, 2014)

I'm pretty sure that most secular companies will still want to cover birth control because if you have a kid that means that they will have to cover for a whole other person.


----------



## Lomberdia (Jul 3, 2014)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> That is a double edged sword. Same thing can be said about government forcing religion on children in schools. Though tits and all that, that's what the proponents would say. Laws stand over personal beliefs is cute and convenient rhetoric when your faction is in power and passing laws you like, but once they lose, since everyone is so short sighted and think their after party will last forever, all of a sudden a different tune is sang about the role of government in people's lives.


Its funny because the law says its its legal to do this. People are just butthurt they can't have their 4 specific drugs. Its only with HL employees anyway easy fix...don't work for them!

I know shocking isnt it. People playing fortune-teller and stuff saying other companies are going to follow are just being paranoid goofs. 3 companies got through and I think all 3 is owned by the same family. I know HL is owned by the family, a christian book store is owned by one of the sons. Not sure about the 3rd company. HL should just pull a chik-a-filet and straight say, "we dont want your kind here! Screw all of you and the sick horse you rode in on!" Then they can reap the millions they will make from supporters since the greater opinion supports them.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 3, 2014)

Gibby said:


> I'm not sure why people are so bottomburned about it.
> 
> It's not like they're stopping you from buying your own contraception...



But for people that cannot afford it, it either gets subsidized by the insurance or free. 
And I am not talking about condoms and "the Pill", I am talking about things like UIDs and other types of preventative methods that work better than condoms or the pill.

For Abortions itself, not all insurance policies cover it. The company could have looked for a insurance company that does not cover abortions instead. No harm, no foul.

Besides, birth control is a GOOD THING!

On the subject of public health vs. Religious rights, you also have to bring into account about vaccinations. There are people who believe that vaccinations are a sin.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 3, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> But for people that cannot afford it, it either gets subsidized by the insurance or free.
> And I am not talking about condoms and "the Pill", I am talking about things like UIDs and other types of preventative methods that work better than condoms or the pill.
> 
> For Abortions itself, not all insurance policies cover it. The company could have looked for a insurance company that does not cover abortions instead. No harm, no foul.
> ...



I think SCOTUS ruled that basically it wouldn't include things like blood transfusions and other like things under their exemptions. I'd imagine vaccines would fall under the same ruling (that is, not able to get exempted).


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Jul 3, 2014)

...so...how about just not work for or shop at hobby lobby if someone thinks that sucks? Simple...

There's like a ton of other non-christian places to get a job at, and they probably offer that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 3, 2014)

WolfNightV4X1 said:


> ...so...how about just not work for or shop at hobby lobby if someone thinks that sucks? Simple...
> 
> There's like a ton of other non-christian places to get a job at, and they probably offer that.



Private enterprise is not as simple as 'everybody do what they want all the time'. 

Not everyone will necessarily have a choice of employment, and companies like hobby lobby are fairly placed under the responsibility of providing health coverage for their staff that is founded upon reasonable medical standards and evidence, rather than on their religious preferences and a poor understanding of medicine. 

Religion is not a right to deny one's responsibilities. 


Of course, there is an alternative, which is that contraception be subsidised by an explicitly secular body, the state, directly. 

Frankly I still find the idea of an art shop having a religious agenda...weird. But maybe that's normal in America.


----------



## Misomie (Jul 3, 2014)

Lomberdia said:


> Its funny because the law says its its legal to do this. People are just butthurt they can't have their 4 specific drugs. Its only with HL employees anyway easy fix...don't work for them!


Do you even understand how the Supreme Court works? They are one of the three big dogs in the government so they have tons of power. Whenever a case is won or lost it sets a precedent. A precedent doesn't just affect the winner and loser. It affects everyone. This means other companies can now do the same thing and they'll win because the court already said so. Here's a lame example for you. Say a guy was arrested for wearing no pants. If it's taken to the Supreme Court and he wins because being forced to wear pants is Unconstitutional. This makes everyone allowed to go pantless because it went through the Supreme Court.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 3, 2014)

Hobby Lobby wasn't being "forced to buy birth control".  The Affordable Care Act requires businesses to provide employees with an insurance plan, which are maintained by third party businesses.  Part of what insurance businesses do is negotiate substantial discounts on medications for their plan members.  What Hobby Lobby has fought for is the legal right to force these third parties to provide them with a crippled version of these plans where their employees won't have access to these discounts on birth control, forcing them to pay full market price for it (which of course is unaffordable for most, kinda why the ACA is a thing to begin with).

This obviously hurts their employees.  It also hurts the insurance companies, as the way they are able to provide such deep discounts on meds is by being able to promise a certain volume of sales on those meds.  This in turn hurts all their other customers, as they won't be able to provide discounts on birth control meds as good as they would be able to otherwise.  It hurts everyone _but_ Hobby Lobby.  It's Hobby Lobby forcing their beliefs on everyone else, not the other way around.  They don't even save any money in doing this, it just makes things they don't like unaffordable for other people.

Health insurance is a part of employees' compensation for their labor.  Fucking with that amounts to taking wages out of their employees' pockets.  Imagine that employees get paid by loading a prepaid card, and Hobby Lobby sued to force Visa to provide a special card where they could block it from being used at certain stores they didn't agree with.  Their employees can still get cash out of it and buy stuff at those stores if they really want, but there's like a 400%+ withdrawal fee if they do.  It's kinda like that.



Nikolinni said:


> I think SCOTUS ruled that basically it wouldn't include things like blood transfusions and other like things under their exemptions. I'd imagine vaccines would fall under the same ruling (that is, not able to get exempted).



Yeah, they had to write in a disclaimer into the ruling that it only applies to contraception and nothing else.  They did this because they _knew_ this ruling didn't fit in with existing precedent, and there was no way they could possibly make a ruling that wouldn't result in other serious consequences otherwise.  So five male conservative Catholics ended up writing a ruling that specifically provides a special exception for Catholic beliefs and no one else for literally no logical reason.



Nikolinni said:


> I'm just curious - what do you think they'll try to do, exactly?



gee I dunno


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jul 4, 2014)

My religion is against paying my employees wages, I can has law plz?


----------



## Misomie (Jul 4, 2014)

Lobar said:


> gee I dunno


Pretty disgusting, huh? It's almost as if religion is trying to keep us from advancing.


----------



## Crimson Wolf (Jul 4, 2014)

Edit:  nvm I am just gonna sit this one out


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Jul 4, 2014)

Lobar said:


> gee I dunno



This is why you can't trust Christians. It's sad but oh so true. You give them an inch and they'll take a mile. 

I was listening to some talk radio on my way to work, and this one guy was just gloating over the decision. Totally one of those "protect the rich white male" types. 

What a shit decision from the Supreme Court.


----------



## RabidLynx (Jul 4, 2014)

i'm sorry but this isn't the biggest issue our country is facing

[e] well fuck it, i'm going to say something anyways.

Yes yes I am one of those people who supports freedom of religion. Yes I know, I'm so terrible and evil, how could I.
But if we are the Land of the Free, wouldn't it make sense if... we were free? lol.
I'm pretty indifferent to the issue of abortion itself. I don't support it nor am I against it. I would just rather not touch the subject with a ten foot pole. But if the company doesn't want to do it because of their religion, god fucking dammit it's a free country isn't it?




lol i ain't surprised this thread is filled with "FUCK RELIGION" comments.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 4, 2014)

RabidLynx said:


> i'm sorry but this isn't the biggest issue our country is facing



I'm sorry; I only read comments that could save starving children.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 4, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm sorry; I only read comments that could save starving children.



I think what they're trying to get across is everyone seems like this is the controversy of the century, when really it isn't. Big whoop you can't get 4 of the 20 contraceptives. Well you know what, make like Ayn Rand and deal with it via private means rather than with the government; that is protest, boycott, embargo, etc. and state that it's due to their stance on contraceptives. If you're successful, they might end up changing their stance and allow it to be covered again.

Or, to paraphrase 2 The Ranting Gryphon, "Well as long as people are clubbing baby seals, I think [this issue] can take a fucking number!"


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 4, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I think what they're trying to get across is everyone seems like this is the controversy of the century, when really it isn't. Big whoop you can't get 4 of the 20 contraceptives. Well you know what, make like Ayn Rand and deal with it via private means rather than with the government; that is protest, boycott, embargo, etc. and state that it's due to their stance on contraceptives. If you're successful, they might end up changing their stance and allow it to be covered again.
> 
> Or, to paraphrase 2 The Ranting Gryphon, "Well as long as people are clubbing baby seals, I think [this issue] can take a fucking number!"



People can hold opinions about multiple matters simultaneously though? Being angry about this precedent does not mean we can't still be concerned about pollution and typhus.

Comments of that nature are asinine.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 4, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> People can hold opinions about multiple matters simultaneously though? Being angry about this precedent does not mean we can't still be concerned about pollution and typhus.
> 
> Comments of that nature are asinine.



Well granted at the time 2 made the video (it was a rant on abortion and how people were making it seem like it's more important than EVERYTHING ELSE) he was a tad bit fustrated that tons of people kept approaching him to make a rant about abortion (usually against it) and from the sounds of it he just got really fustrated that there's a ton of other issues going on and people are acting as if abortion was the number one issue. 

But yeah, I agree that people can hold multiple opinions and focus on multiple things.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 4, 2014)

RabidLynx said:


> i'm sorry but this isn't the biggest issue our country is facing
> 
> [e] well fuck it, i'm going to say something anyways.
> 
> ...



As for the company not wanting you to do something, they do not own your body. Also, the insurance company should at least dictate on what you can and cannot do while the policy holders, Hobby Lobby, can and cannot cover as far as healthcare goes. 

Freedom in America is an illusion.

As for freedom of Religion, yes, you can worship whatever you want. However, if your establishment isn't Christian or you are trying to have exemptions as a non-christian establishment, tough shit.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 4, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Well you know what, make like Ayn Rand and deal with it via private means



What, you mean die penniless?


----------



## Misomie (Jul 4, 2014)

Employees already pay a premnium to their boss for the healthcare. It's hurting them because their coverage got cut and if they do need any of the cut items they are technically paying for it twice. It was already mentioned that the employer isn't directly paying for the 4, just the package deal. Not to mention the 4 are *not* abortionists. They don't kill fertilized eggs. They prevent fertilization and/or ovulation. Otherwise the medical community would class them as abortionists. They are not violating religious beliefs (by that I mean the Christians in questions).


----------



## rjbartrop (Jul 5, 2014)

RabidLynx said:


> i'm sorry but this isn't the biggest issue our country is facing
> 
> [e] well fuck it, i'm going to say something anyways.
> 
> ...



I fully support freedom of religion, and if the owners of Hobby Lobby Think it's wrong to have an abortion, then they don't have to.   You certainly have a right to your beliefs, however they are YOUR beliefs.  You can believe as hard as you wand, but this in no way obligates me or anyone else to follow them.   For better or worse he list of things that are perfectly legal does not perfectly mesh with the personal beliefs of every single citizen.  If a Muslim tried to tell you that you couldn't have a pork chop for supper, you'd rightly tell them to take a flying leap.   If you need a blood transfusion then the Jehovah's Witnesses are just going to have to deal with it, and no matter how important it is to your worship of Pele that you toss a virgin into a live volcano, that's just too bad.   And if I risk eternal damnation by not following your beliefs, then that's my problem.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 5, 2014)

Lomberdia said:


> The one near me doesn't but then again I end convos with 'Have a blessed day' so I guess that stopped them. Mormons don't take no for an answer. Even when I tell them I have a church, it's not good enough for them. It has to be THEIR church. Mormons.....



Lol! I find this so funny having been raised mormon. Basically its not that they are aggressive and rude with their preaching, they just don't give up. Its like they believe if they bake enough pies and be friendly enough that you will come to accept the "truth". Its actually refreshing compared to "you will burn in hell for your sin!" that you hear from most people trying to convert you.

*anyway* this whole discussion boils down to ONE premise that Fallowfox was the first to present clearly....


			
				Fallowfox said:
			
		

> Fundamentally, companies private or not have a responsibility to provide the necessities to their employees, which includes health care costs in many cases.



The argument ALWAYS boils down to this. "The company is morally bound to provide the "necessities" vs "The company is only responsible for providing what the work force has agreed to"

Its boiled down to difference in beliefs. One side believes that the work force without government force can never reach a fair deal with the corporations. The other side points out that when you start strong arming people into business deals the business deal is unlikely to be fair to the person you strong armed.

Ultimately the problem with the mindset provided by fallowfox is A: the "necessities" expressed by society change with the winds, may not actually represent the value of the work they are performing at hobby lobby. More than that those "necessities" probably include a great many things that are not actually factually "necessary". B: Whenever the terms of a business agreement are made by what essentially mob rules(the mob that is the angriest with the most participants wins) it is HIGHLY unlikely to be fair, and take into account the defeated party's needs. C: there is a titanic logical fallacy in arguing that people are entitled to a "fair deal" while conversely denying one of two parties the right to negotiate a fair deal.



			
				Misomie said:
			
		

> Employees already pay a premnium to their boss for the healthcare. It's hurting them because their coverage got cut and if they do need any of the cut items they are technically paying for it twice. It was already mentioned that the employer isn't directly paying for the 4, just the package deal. Not to mention the 4 are not abortionists. They don't kill fertilized eggs. They prevent fertilization and/or ovulation. Otherwise the medical community would class them as abortionists. They are not violating religious beliefs (by that I mean the Christians in questions).



Well then don't threaten people with fines and other means of coercion if they don't buy your product. 

Your essentially complained that you made it law that everyone has to once a year walk into the blender shop and buy the top of the line blender. Now your complaining that the blender has a few functions taken out. Yes the few functions that were removed from the blender was the problem.... Not the fact that EVERYONE had to buy one, not the fact that they had to essentially buy a top of the line industrial blender that likely far exceeds their needs, not the fact that people already get paid by their employer but you expect that same employer to pay for most of that blender.... No, those weren't problems at all. All of that was "just" and was bound to ONLY result in good...


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jul 5, 2014)

What strikes me as interesting is that many people who don't want to see health care cover birth-control would not bat an eye at it being used to cover penis pumps.  That said, I don't care what a person's religion is. They have no right to push their beliefs onto me. Here in America it should be understood that to truly have freedom of religion, you must also be free from it. Otherwise at the end of the day you have no freedom of religion, because you are subject to what ever majority religion currently controls the political sphere.

That is all I can really say on this. The government needs to stop letting people use religion as a basis to enact rules for others to follow.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 5, 2014)

Health care.  Pretty much the same thing as a new blender.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 5, 2014)

Trpdwarf said:


> What strikes me as interesting is that many people who don't want to see health care cover birth-control would not bat an eye at it being used to cover penis pumps.  That said, I don't care what a person's religion is. They have no right to push their beliefs onto me. Here in America it should be understood that to truly have freedom of religion, you must also be free from it. Otherwise at the end of the day you have no freedom of religion, because you are subject to what ever majority religion currently controls the political sphere.
> 
> That is all I can really say on this. The government needs to stop letting people use religion as a basis to enact rules for others to follow.



One points out that there is a difference between telling people that believe contraception is morally wrong that they should pay for YOUR contraception and telling people that they have the choice to pay for your contraception or not. 

One of those things is a liberty, the other is a rule an order that the concerned party must follow. 

Therefore allowing a corporation a choice to provide healthcare or not is not "enacting a rule for others to follow". Telling that corporation that they MUST provide that coverage is. 



			
				Lobar said:
			
		

> Health care. Pretty much the same thing as a new blender.



Yeah, shows you don't know how to read an argument. Knee jerk emotionalism. "I feel therefore everyone does what I tell them to do"

Would it have made more sense if i wrote "blender" instead? *rolls eyes*. You know making statements like that only insult yourself right?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 5, 2014)

Misomie said:


> Employees already pay a premnium to their boss for the healthcare. It's hurting them because their coverage got cut and if they do need any of the cut items they are technically paying for it twice. It was already mentioned that the employer isn't directly paying for the 4, just the package deal. Not to mention the 4 are *not* abortionists. They don't kill fertilized eggs. They prevent fertilization and/or ovulation. Otherwise the medical community would class them as abortionists. They are not violating religious beliefs (by that I mean the Christians in questions).




It is unfortunate this pseudo-medical belief about some birthcontrol drugs is so persistent. I recall when I was 16 I was talking with my girlfriend about potential sex and she stated that she would never take a morning after pill 'because it was tantamount to abortion'. I never did have sex with her- my head was screwed on too tight to risk having a baby because my girl friend didn't know what a morning after pill does.

_
"Ultimately the problem with the mindset provided by fallowfox is A: the  "necessities" expressed by society change with the winds, may not  actually represent the value of the work they are performing at hobby  lobby. More than that those "necessities" probably include a great many  things that are not actually factually "necessary". B: Whenever the  terms of a business agreement are made by what essentially mob rules(the  mob that is the angriest with the most participants wins) it is HIGHLY  unlikely to be fair, and take into account the defeated party's needs.  C: there is a titanic logical fallacy in arguing that people are  entitled to a "fair deal" while conversely denying one of two parties  the right to negotiate a fair deal."_

You are right that discussing what insurance policies should constitute to be effective, and whether companies should be bound to have effective insurance policies at all, is a nuanced matter which requires evidence based policy making. 
I shan't get into the argument here, as it is extensive and not entirely relevant, but let us consider that

-companies are required to provide effective insurance for their employees
-that this insurance is most effective is it subsidises birth control drugs

Obviously once a solution has been reached, distorting it to accommodate magical and incorrect beliefs about certain medicines is a terrible idea. We want the suite of medicines to be provided to be decided by evidence, not by views that are not just morally dubious but medically wrong.




ceacar99 said:


> One points out that there is a difference  between telling people that believe contraception is morally wrong that  they should pay for YOUR contraception and telling people that they have  the choice to pay for your contraception or not.
> 
> One of those things is a liberty, the other is a rule an order that the concerned party must follow.
> 
> ...




No, you don't know how to _make _an argument. Whatever standard insurance policies are decided by, and whatever measure is required of a company to legally operate, is to be decided by evidence based analysis. 
It should *not* be determined by beliefs about medical drugs and technology which are objectively incorrect. 

Your argument about kitchen utensils is not relevant.


----------



## Misomie (Jul 5, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> It is unfortunate this pseudo-medical belief about some birthcontrol drugs is so persistent. I recall when I was 16 I was talking with my girlfriend about potential sex and she stated that she would never take a morning after pill 'because it was tantamount to abortion'. I never did have sex with her- my head was screwed on too tight to risk having a baby because my girl friend didn't know what a morning after pill does.


Poor pills and the pseudo science that makes them villans. XP Morning after pills are actually recommended to females that want to push their period back two days because of inconvenience (meeting, vacation, ect). There are some drugs that are actual abortionists but these ones aren't. It's just so infuriating when pseudo science trumps legit science.


----------



## Lomberdia (Jul 5, 2014)

I think what ceacar99 is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that NO companies should be FORCED into paying for their employee's health benefits without at least them being able to choose what they want to cover, which very well could be the bare minimum. I'm sure these packages are usually above and beyond what is needed to get by legally. Health benefits should be a perk for working for someone and part of the sales pitch to bring in new workers "Oh we cover XYZ where our competition doesn't! Work for us!" instead its EVERYONE covers XYZ.

I personally feel the gov should only force companies to pay for the bare min of actual medical drugs that require prescription. No OTC stuff. Then companies can offer better insurance if they want. Might be better to make it fully optional for companies and there can be a kind of incentive for companies that want to play along. Sure it screws over the folks that are with tightwade companies but there is that obamacare stuff for people without medical benefits from their employer. But I don't keep up with obamacare news so it could have changed.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 5, 2014)

ceacar99 said:


> Yeah, shows you don't know how to read an argument. Knee jerk emotionalism. "I feel therefore everyone does what I tell them to do"
> 
> Would it have made more sense if i wrote "blender" instead? *rolls eyes*. You know making statements like that only insult yourself right?



lol because your decision to reframe the argument in the context of luxury goods rather than basic necessity services wasn't a ham-fisted attempt at skewing the emotional aspects of the issue at all, no sir

Hint: If your analogy does nothing to actually clarify your argument and only serves to obfuscate the details supporting the opposing viewpoint, it is a bad analogy.



Lomberdia said:


> I think what ceacar99 is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that NO companies should be FORCED into paying for their employee's health benefits without at least them being able to choose what they want to cover, which very well could be the bare minimum. I'm sure these packages are usually above and beyond what is needed to get by legally. Health benefits should be a perk for working for someone and part of the sales pitch to bring in new workers "Oh we cover XYZ where our competition doesn't! Work for us!" instead its EVERYONE covers XYZ.
> 
> I personally feel the gov should only force companies to pay for the bare min of actual medical drugs that require prescription. No OTC stuff. Then companies can offer better insurance if they want. Might be better to make it fully optional for companies and there can be a kind of incentive for companies that want to play along. Sure it screws over the folks that are with tightwade companies but there is that obamacare stuff for people without medical benefits from their employer. But I don't keep up with obamacare news so it could have changed.



Birth control is part of the "bare minimum", deal with it.  Also I've never even heard of an insurance plan that bothers with over-the-counter drugs; nobody worries about not being able to afford aspirin.


----------



## RabidLynx (Jul 5, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> People can hold opinions about multiple matters simultaneously though? Being angry about this precedent does not mean we can't still be concerned about pollution and typhus.
> 
> Comments of that nature are asinine.



To clear it up, I didn't mean I don't care about this topic. I do care about this topic. However I just don't think it's THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT OUR COUNTRY IS FACING. It is an issue though, and I won't ignore it.

Anyways, I was going to say something pertaining to the current argument here, but never mind. Who cares about what some stupid teenager has to say. I'll just stalk this thread and see where it goes.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 5, 2014)

RabidLynx said:


> To clear it up, I didn't mean I don't care about this topic. I do care about this topic. However I just don't think it's THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT OUR COUNTRY IS FACING. It is an issue though, and I won't ignore it.
> 
> Anyways, I was going to say something pertaining to the current argument here, but never mind. Who cares about what some stupid teenager has to say. I'll just stalk this thread and see where it goes.



I don't think it is the biggest problem your country is facing either. Do you honestly think anybody did?


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 5, 2014)

Lomberdia said:


> I think what ceacar99 is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that NO companies should be FORCED into paying for their employee's health benefits without at least them being able to choose what they want to cover, which very well could be the bare minimum. I'm sure these packages are usually above and beyond what is needed to get by legally. Health benefits should be a perk for working for someone and part of the sales pitch to bring in new workers "Oh we cover XYZ where our competition doesn't! Work for us!" instead its EVERYONE covers XYZ.
> 
> I personally feel the gov should only force companies to pay for the bare min of actual medical drugs that require prescription. No OTC stuff. Then companies can offer better insurance if they want. Might be better to make it fully optional for companies and there can be a kind of incentive for companies that want to play along. Sure it screws over the folks that are with tightwade companies but there is that obamacare stuff for people without medical benefits from their employer. But I don't keep up with obamacare news so it could have changed.



I am going to heavily disagree with that and Ceacar's statement.
Healthcare is a right, a basic human right. Not a privilege. Contraceptives for both men and women are also a right which are part of healthcare to as a preventative measure. 
Considering healthcare a privilege is an american thing. However, going outside of the country in places that have healthcare available to people with and without insurance, those natives think we are pants-on-head retarded. 
If you work, you should get healthcare and not have to go broke because you broke a leg, or suddenly came down with a debilitating illness that over the counter drugs cannot fix. 

And with ACA, you are pretty much FORCED to buy from a company that purposely gouges for the benefit that they think they are running out of money, instead of realizing that it allows people to buy insurance FROM THEM at regular or subsidized prices. It tried to do a good thing, but the people that got their hands on it turned it into a not-so-good thing.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jul 5, 2014)

ceacar99 said:


> One points out that there is a difference between telling people that believe contraception is morally wrong that they should pay for YOUR contraception and telling people that they have the choice to pay for your contraception or not.
> 
> One of those things is a liberty, the other is a rule an order that the concerned party must follow.
> 
> ...



You know what is sometimes the most embarrassing thing about going into areas to hang out with a multitudes of people from different countries? It's the questions they ask about how america got so idiotic when it came to simple things such as proper health-care for it's people. The point is it's a more uniquely American perspective to treat health care like some privilege, or a business. Also you have things a bit backwards and you don't appear to fully understand what you are talking about.

People don't "Pay" for other people's health-care when it comes to insurance given by a company. I am so sick of this illusion that people carry around. If your company gives you health-care you pay for it out of your pay-check. I have family who has pretty much the best health-care out there as per their company and what they provide. But a good chunk of their paycheck each month goes towards that. Ultimately with insurance you pay for your health-care. Not the company, you. So sitting there and claiming that others are paying for things they don't morally approve of is silly.

If you don't like contraceptives due to moral reasons you don't use them. You can't sit there and force your peers to not have access to them through their health care that they pay for out of their paycheck. 

You know though I find the claim that many make that they are against contraceptives for moral or religious reasons absolutely bunk. The same kinds of people never have an issue with health insurance covering penis pumps which by their function lead to sperm death. So, how is the egg holy, but the sperm not? People don't really seem to think before they spout this non-sense. This really isn't an issue of morality or religion. It's plain old trying to control people's bodies, and a 2000 year old fascination with being uncomfortable with sexuality liberty.

Edit: All this aside what this opens things up for as already seen by a group deciding they want to be able to deny hiring based on LGBT involvement is this:

Companies could fire people and be protected by their "Religious freedom" for things like eating bacon on a sandwich during lunch, enjoying social drinking on your day off, owning guns or belonging to a guns right advocacy group. Companies could refuse to hire based on gender due to religious reasons. This current way of things if it doesn't stop or get challenged can take us at least half a century or more backwards as a society.

Religious beliefs don't trump personal rights and this goes for corporations that identify like a single entity, hiring, and health care.

EDIT: Finally don't you think it's a whole level of wrong to sit there and demand people suffer because your religion is against contraceptives? Contraceptives have more uses for women them preventing pregnancy. There are also women who take it because it's the only thing that can alleviate menstrual issues that are so bad that they cannot function. There are some young teenagers that go on birth-control because it helps them live a normal life. It has nothing to do with sex. Should those people just suffer even though their parents or adults in general pay for insurance and take a pay hit for that? Should they just be so debilitated that they cannot work? Should people suffer severe acne to the point that it can lead to serious infection because some higher up decided contraceptives are against their religion?

What about people who are married, don't want kids, and pregnancy could kill the wife due to problems with their uterus? If that have insurance contraceptives or hormone therapy that helps deals with this should be included. It's not so black and white. These things should be part of regular health-care and a company should not be able to suddenly decide "Well the health care you pay for won't include X because of my religion".


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 5, 2014)

The belief that the egg is holy, but sperm are not, originates from an incorrect belief that morning after pills prevent zygotes from implanting [for some reason lots of people believe zygotes are divine], when what they actually do is prevent egg and sperm meeting by delaying ovulation.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 5, 2014)

Lobar said:
			
		

> lol because your decision to reframe the argument in the context of luxury goods rather than basic necessity services wasn't a ham-fisted attempt at skewing the emotional aspects of the issue at all, no sir
> 
> Hint: If your analogy does nothing to actually clarify your argument and only serves to obfuscate the details supporting the opposing viewpoint, it is a bad analogy.



Well lets look at this. When your expected to pay for healthcare coverage programs that you won't need until your 60.... That is "expecting people to buy a luxury item". You do realize that there were MILLIONS of americans that had basic healthcare plans that served them well and they were told that they were no longer sufficient? Thus people are arbitarily told to buy "blenders" aka an item that they really could live without. 

Really when looking at the argument you made an overt point "blenders are not as important as healthcare" which is pretty obvious, ignoring the true meanings behind my argument. 

But by the method transmission of this statement you also said "I'm not intelligent enough to delve deeper and use my words, so I'm going to do the verbal equivalent of throwing a tomato". Thus you have insulted yourself with your statement. 



			
				Fallowfox said:
			
		

> No, you don't know how to make an argument. Whatever standard insurance policies are decided by, and whatever measure is required of a company to legally operate, is to be decided by evidence based analysis.
> It should not be determined by beliefs about medical drugs and technology which are objectively incorrect.
> 
> Your argument about kitchen utensils is not relevant.



And by making this argument you completely ignored any attempt to make an evidence based analysis of point a,b and c in my post. Considering that your argument doesn't take in all the information, why is it relevant? No where in my post did I defend explicitly religious control over what is law and what is not. Look again sir, you don't seem to know how to read.

A: "Necessities" as expressed by public opinion are not always "necessary" they are often "desires". Such as demanding 19 year old working adults buy medical care that covers care options they will not use for another twenty years. 

B:When business agreements are made by mob rules, such as this case(the largest mob made the rule by voting in the government) it is highly unlikely that the agreement is fair to the defeated party nor is it likely that any such agreement will take into account this party's needs. 

C:Its hypocritical to argue that people should be given the ability to negotiate a "fair deal" and then use the government to enforce a "fair deal" for one of two parties involved essentially denying the other party's right to negotiate.

Again, not once did I mention religious beliefs being the arbiter or any of that. I pointed out some logical problems in trying to say its "right" to use the government to negotiate business deals on the behalf of one party over the other. 

In fact looking at the whole problem the hobby lobby mess is something everyone should have seen coming. The corporations involved didn't have any real say in the business agreement they are now forced into with their workers. Of course they are going to find every single legal method possible to undermine this deal and render it effectively void. 



			
				Trpdwarf  said:
			
		

> You know what is sometimes the most embarrassing thing about going into areas to hang out with a multitudes of people from different countries? It's the questions they ask about how america got so idiotic when it came to simple things such as proper health-care for it's people. The point is it's a more uniquely American perspective to treat health care like some privilege, or a business. Also you have things a bit backwards and you don't appear to fully understand what you are talking about.



The problem is discussing the balance between allowing the individual to be an individual and simply structuring a government that continually makes demands that remove liberties "for the greater good". For example, food water and clothing. These are the most basic of basic necessities. Obviously people do not have a choice to buy these things or not to. Which is of course, the common argument used for healthcare. When someone is sick they need coverage or they will die. 

However, what if we made laws banning chocolate, soda, and heavily regulated the amount of salt commercially cooked food can have in it? What if we decide that "for the greater good" EVERYONE has to eat vegan, all natural "organic" food? This same principle is applied to the "affordable" healthcare thrust upon us. We are no longer legally able to buy "low grade" food. Instead of a loaf of bread we must buy all natural whole grain organic expensive loaves of bread even though the lower grade ones would work.

Of course the final result of all of this is adding burdens on America's youth whom are already drowning under college debt, have poor job prospects and have not had time to build up wealth for themselves. Is not the hope that these youthes will not really use the healthcare they are paying for so that premiums will go down? Is that not essentially mining the limited wealth of the young for the benefit of their elders? 



			
				Trpdwarf said:
			
		

> People don't "Pay" for other people's health-care when it comes to insurance given by a company. I am so sick of this illusion that people carry around. If your company gives you health-care you pay for it out of your pay-check. I have family who has pretty much the best health-care out there as per their company and what they provide. But a good chunk of their paycheck each month goes towards that. Ultimately with insurance you pay for your health-care. Not the company, you. So sitting there and claiming that others are paying for things they don't morally approve of is silly.



Under the "affordable" health care act businesses are expected to pay what essentially amounts to the subsidies promised by the system. Thus part of your healthcare coverage is paid for by the company. The unsubsidized part comes out of your paycheck. 

Of course if your stating that the subsidies ultimately come out of your paycheck anyway I can point out that under the same logic we could say "businesses don't pay taxes, their customers pay those taxes" thus bringing up the point "why bother even taxing companies at all?". I'm not proposing this, I'm just pointing out the flaw in that logic.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 5, 2014)

I did not think it was possible to  say a lot and nothing at the same time. Bravo!


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 5, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> I did not think it was possible to  say a lot and nothing at the same time. Bravo!



False emotional statement, expressed simply on the grounds that I don't stand exactly with your viewpoint. Your the equivalent of a guy standing with fingers in his ears going "la la la! I'm right shut up!". All of course because you simply don't want to address the issues of business agreement negotiation, mining the wealth of the youth for their elders, and what actually defines "necessary to life needs"


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jul 5, 2014)

ceacar99 said:


> False emotional statement, expressed simply on the grounds that I don't stand exactly with your viewpoint. Your the equivalent of a guy standing with fingers in his ears going "la la la! I'm right shut up!". All of course because you simply don't want to address the issues of business agreement negotiation, mining the wealth of the youth for their elders, and what actually defines "necessary to life needs"



Not really. You are choosing to go onto a tangent about things completely unrelated to what a person is saying. In that way you are saying a lot of words but not really having much meaning.

I am talking about religious entities enforcing their brand of morality upon others. This has nothing to do with individuals trying to enforce "The common good". I am talking about religious groups trying to enforce their morals upon others and the long term loss of rights people in general will lose by giving these people's religion more rights than the individual/giving these corporate entities more rights. You are bringing up government trying to force people to do things? The government is not the one trying to control other people. That's the corporate entities abusing the government to try to enforce their morality upon others. They are abusing and skewing religious freedom so they can rob others of their individual rights.

If you cannot bother to respond to my points and instead wish to go off topic than don't respond to my posts?

What does talking about banning soda, junk, etc have to do with anything that I have said? Nothing. That's what. Your tangent about "Well why tax businesses" is also an irrelevant tangent. So yeah, a lot of words but not much meaning. You response is a non response. You know what though, neither one of us has to ability to change each other's viewpoints. I can accept that. But you think about what you are supporting now when if down the road you lose your job because they decide your sexuality is against your job's top heads religious morals.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 5, 2014)

Trpdwarf said:
			
		

> Not really. You are choosing to go onto a tangent about things completely unrelated to what a person is saying. In that way you are saying a lot of words but not really having much meaning.
> 
> I am talking about religious entities enforcing their brand of morality upon others. This has nothing to do with individuals trying to enforce "The common good". I am talking about religious groups trying to enforce their morals upon others and the long term loss of rights people in general will lose by giving these people's religion more rights than the individual/giving these corporate entities more rights. You are bringing up government trying to force people to do things? The government is not the one trying to control other people. That's the corporate entities abusing the government to try to enforce their morality upon others. They are abusing and skewing religious freedom so they can rob others of their individual rights.
> 
> If you cannot bother to respond to my points and instead wish to go off topic than don't respond to my posts?



*sigh*.... I addressed all that.... Lets look at what you wrote sir...



			
				you wrote said:
			
		

> It's the questions they ask about how america got so idiotic when it came to simple things such as proper health-care for it's people. The point is it's a more uniquely American perspective to treat health care like some privilege, or a business.



With this statement you asserted that A: "healthcare is not a priviledge", B: "America needed some sort of quality healthcare system". When you propose C: "if someone is unable to pay for healthcare(the reason for socialized healthcare plans) other people should help out or outright pay for that healthcare" you are proposing an argument based on "the common good". As in, in order for it to be justafyable for you to demand someone else's money to pay for something that something has to promote a greater good of sorts. 

*thus* I responded to your arguments perfectly well. Your position is based on the argument "We need some sort of a public healthcare system that supports everyone for the common good." The "common good" being the universal right to access to healthcare.

*therefore* any argument I made against obamacare actually supporting "the common good' is in fact relevant. The economic disadvantages of mining the youth's limited resources to try to help pay for the coverage of others may just by far outweigh any advantages we gain from everyone being covered. 



			
				Trpdwarf said:
			
		

> What does talking about banning soda, junk, etc have to do with anything that I have said? Nothing. That's what. Your tangent about "Well why tax businesses" is also an irrelevant tangent. So yeah, a lot of words but not much meaning. You response is a non response. You know what though, neither one of us has to ability to change each other's viewpoints. I can accept that. But you think about what you are supporting now when if down the road you lose your job because they decide your sexuality is against your job's top heads religious morals.



again, lets look at what *you* wrote. What I responded to did not mention religion. 



			
				you wrote said:
			
		

> People don't "Pay" for other people's health-care when it comes to insurance given by a company. I am so sick of this illusion that people carry around. If your company gives you health-care you pay for it out of your pay-check.



Where is the mention of religion and inplied slippery slopes? I cannot respond to something that you did not argue. 

You did not mention "religious entities" in either argument I responded to or quoted. Therefore I responded justly. If you wanted to discuss religious entities only you should have kept your arguments entirely concerned with the slippery slope of ruling for religious freedom in the manner of the recent supreme court decision. I responded exactly to what yous said.

Again, I can only respond to what you actually said. Not what you wanted to say, or what you felt you should have said.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 5, 2014)

Frankly your view of how the world works is so passionately backwards that nobody is going to persuade you to review it. You're just going to rationalise it, rather than search it for any errors. 

The crux of this thread shouldn't be pitting your world view against the status quo. 


It is that whatever world view you hold, changing insurance policies to reflect pseudo-medical convictions is not acceptable, even if they are held for religious reasons.


----------



## Misomie (Jul 5, 2014)

Actually, your ban on junkfood example will fall flat on it's face. Junkfood companies will become healthfood companies. They'll clash and prices will be lowered. Healthy food is mainly so expensive because of testing (for organics) and the low supply. If healthy food was all that was left, supply will rise (otherwise people will starve) either through government subsidizing companies to get into the business or companies wanting to get in the business.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 5, 2014)

Misomie said:


> Actually, your ban on junkfood example will fall flat on it's face. Junkfood companies will become healthfood companies. They'll clash and prices will be lowered. Healthy food is mainly so expensive because of testing (for organics) and the low supply. If healthy food was all that was left, supply will rise (otherwise people will starve) either through government subsidizing companies to get into the business or companies wanting to get in the business.



I don't think this is a useful avenue of discussion. 

It's the kind of subject which requires statistical analysis, but people on forums aren't good at maths or reading papers, so they make constant 'and if x happens y will surely happen' statements. 

It is usually nothing more than a game of rationalisations. If people want to know how economics works they can be directed to read economics texts.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 5, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Frankly your view of how the world works is so passionately backwards that nobody is going to persuade you to review it. You're just going to rationalise it, rather than search it for any errors.
> 
> The crux of this thread shouldn't be pitting your world view against the status quo.
> 
> ...



"backwards" is a variable that has yet to be determined. Considering that you wont even entertain the discussion of the problems of the mindset as expressed by the affordable healthcare act's plan I can see that your far more stubborn than I will ever be. 

More than that, I never expressed there shouldn't be some sort of a plan for healthcare for Americans. One that doesn't involve a titanic coup for the insurance companies and mining the young for their wealth. Perhaps it would have been more wise to treat health insurance and insurance companies as "public utilities". Thereby opening the door to price regulation(which IS done under obamacare), guarenting that anyone with a condition can get insurance and so on. Like all plans there are risks. Such as the possibility of "too big to fail" insurance companies that get a free pass by their more direct relationship with the government.

Finally the argument about religion's involvement in all this really boils down to "should religious beliefs allow exemption from laws". Which I would state is something we cannot tolerate. Therefore I have not argued that in this thread. I merely point out companies using any available means such as religion to get back at the people whom denied them the choice of contract is something that actually makes sense. Its far more likely that hobby lobby is using religion to get out of a contract with their employees that they had no say in than to principally defend their religion. It actually all makes sense.



			
				Misomie said:
			
		

> Actually, your ban on junkfood example will fall flat on it's face. Junkfood companies will become healthfood companies. They'll clash and prices will be lowered. Healthy food is mainly so expensive because of testing (for organics) and the low supply. If healthy food was all that was left, supply will rise (otherwise people will starve) either through government subsidizing companies to get into the business or companies wanting to get in the business.



The problem with the "greater good" principle is where does it end? As human beings we cannot accurately see all of the results of our actions. For example we don't know that health food prices will go down with increased demand. That's the assertion with healthcare costs under the affordable care act but we have seen no such result yet. 

However, what principles will you build your society on if everything must submit to the "greater good"? What rights and privileges can people count on if at any moment you can strip them away "for the greater good"? The debate is not necessarily if health food or healthcare is good for people. The real debate behind it all is if removing people's ability to choose results in a more "just" and "fair" society. As well as if society should be about being fair(such as equal legal rights) or product the "greater good" which can create unequal legal rights to achieve an end.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jul 6, 2014)

ceacar99 said:


> The problem with the "greater good" principle is where does it end? As human beings we cannot accurately see all of the results of our actions. For example we don't know that health food prices will go down with increased demand. That's the assertion with healthcare costs under the affordable care act but we have seen no such result yet.
> 
> However, what principles will you build your society on if everything must submit to the "greater good"? What rights and privileges can people count on if at any moment you can strip them away "for the greater good"? The debate is not necessarily if health food or healthcare is good for people. The real debate behind it all is if removing people's ability to choose results in a more "just" and "fair" society. As well as if society should be about being fair(such as equal legal rights) or product the "greater good" which can create unequal legal rights to achieve an end.



Sure, but where does liberty end?
My swinging fist and your nose and all that.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 6, 2014)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> Sure, but where does liberty end?
> My swinging fist and your nose and all that.



Lol, someone who gets it! 

So then sir, would you say a fair middle ground is that instead of having "unlimited liberties and freedom" we stick to having a few select liberties? And we develop all arguments about what we can and cannot restrict based upon these liberties being something that one cannot revoke?

If so, then there is a question we must ask. Are these foundation liberties fundamentally created to generate "equality", or are they there to generate "the common good". This distinction is important as it will define the nature of these liberties. For example liberties designed to promote "equality" would possibly be things such as the right to form or not to form contracts with other people. Whereas that may not actually support "the common good' and therefore that liberty would not exist. 

Basically this is all an attempt to ask if we are actually holding sacred things that we have said we would hold sacred. Is forcing people to buy something, anything at all compatible with the fundamental concepts of why our liberties were formed and continue to be held?


----------



## Artillery Spam (Jul 6, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> In before CaptainCool.



My sides.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 6, 2014)

ceacar99 said:


> "backwards" is a variable that has yet to be determined. Considering that you wont even entertain the discussion of the problems of the mindset as expressed by the affordable healthcare act's plan I can see that your far more stubborn than I will ever be.
> 
> More than that, I never expressed there shouldn't be some sort of a plan for healthcare for Americans. One that doesn't involve a titanic coup for the insurance companies and mining the young for their wealth. Perhaps it would have been more wise to treat health insurance and insurance companies as "public utilities". Thereby opening the door to price regulation(which IS done under obamacare), guarenting that anyone with a condition can get insurance and so on. Like all plans there are risks. Such as the possibility of "too big to fail" insurance companies that get a free pass by their more direct relationship with the government.
> 
> ...




The first part is right, the second part is wrong. If you don't think companies should be bound to provide insurance plans for their employees then that needs to be settled with evidence in the political arena. It should not be settled by assertions about medicine which are objectively wrong being pandered to in order to protect valueless religious sentiments.




ceacar99 said:


> Lol, someone who gets it!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ceacar, stop polluting this discussion about religious intervention in politics with a discussion about political orientation. 

Apparently you are fine with religion being a political vice *even if the claims are known to be wrong*, so long as it gets the result you are after. The rest of us think that you should only get the results you are after if you can _show_ they would be good, rather than because lies are protected by government provided that they involve bronze age magic.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 6, 2014)

Fallowfox said:
			
		

> The first part is right, the second part is wrong. If you don't think companies should be bound to provide insurance plans for their employees then that needs to be settled with evidence in the political arena. It should not be settled by assertions about medicine which are objectively wrong being pandered to in order to protect valueless religious sentiments.



Hmm... the part highlighted I definitely should have clarified more. I did not mean "it makes sense because I approve of their end objective". When you take the whole paragraph into account the message I intended to convey was. "We cannot tolerate exemption to laws based on religious belief. Also when you force an obligation, contract or agreement upon someone a logical response on their part would be to use every dirty trick in the book including the religion card to weaken that obligation or eliminate it entirely"

The ultimate aim of the statement was to highlight the problems that arise from forcing contracts on people. Obamacare has likely ten to twelve years of litigation challenges ahead of it. When a more subtle plan that was more careful and targeted would not have as likely resulted in such a scenario. There are of course also the problems of "mining" the youth's limited financial resources to try to pump money into the insurance companies in the hope that they lower rates giving more aged members of society a break financially.



			
				Fallowfox said:
			
		

> Ceacar, stop polluting this discussion about religious intervention in politics with a discussion about political orientation.
> 
> Apparently you are fine with religion being a political vice even if the claims are known to be wrong, so long as it gets the result you are after. The rest of us think that you should only get the results you are after if you can show they would be good, rather than because lies are protected by government provided that they involve bronze age magic.



I think the above response addresses most of this. There was a misunderstanding about what I was actually saying. 

Also what I am intending to do is say "I told you so" about this whole thing. Seriously with how crude, and foolish the "affordable" healthcare act is everyone should have seen this coming. Having the majority forcing an agreement upon a minority rarely results in a co-operative nature. Expect MORE litigation of this nature in the future until the whole system is full of holes, is taking on water and is a laughingstock as it sinks to the bottom.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 6, 2014)

ceacar99 said:


> Hmm... the part highlighted I definitely should have clarified more. I did not mean "it makes sense because I approve of their end objective". When you take the whole paragraph into account the message I intended to convey was. "We cannot tolerate exemption to laws based on religious belief. Also when you force an obligation, contract or agreement upon someone a logical response on their part would be to use every dirty trick in the book including the religion card to weaken that obligation or eliminate it entirely"
> 
> The ultimate aim of the statement was to highlight the problems that arise from forcing contracts on people. Obamacare has likely ten to twelve years of litigation challenges ahead of it. When a more subtle plan that was more careful and targeted would not have as likely resulted in such a scenario. There are of course also the problems of "mining" the youth's limited financial resources to try to pump money into the insurance companies in the hope that they lower rates giving more aged members of society a break financially.
> 
> ...



Contractual obligations do have to be forced sometime, such as those which compel companies to dispose of their waste responsibility, and yes some companies use every dirty trick in the book to get away with polluting. 

The rest of your comment is 'if x then y will surely happen' comments, which are valueless. People can make up 'if x then y' stories with whatever narrative they please.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Jul 6, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Contractual obligations do have to be forced sometime, such as those which compel companies to dispose of their waste responsibility, and yes some companies use every dirty trick in the book to get away with polluting.



And this is a very good example liberty vs greater good*.
Does the company's liberty to do as they see fit trump my greater good of living on a habitable planet. I say it doesn't.

*: Greater Good Â© 966.M41 Tau Empire


----------



## Lobar (Jul 6, 2014)

ceacar99 said:


> Basically this is all an attempt to ask if we are actually holding sacred things that we have said we would hold sacred. Is forcing people to buy something, anything at all compatible with the fundamental concepts of why our liberties were formed and continue to be held?



You know, you're right.  We should ditch the whole scheme of buying private insurance and implement a public single payer system instead.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 7, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Contractual obligations do have to be forced sometime, such as those which compel companies to dispose of their waste responsibility, and yes some companies use every dirty trick in the book to get away with polluting.
> 
> The rest of your comment is 'if x then y will surely happen' comments, which are valueless. People can make up 'if x then y' stories with whatever narrative they please.



Actually its more like "I am currently observing the existence of y. I predicted x would lead to y. I seem to be right." Because one y exists, more ys are likely to be created in the opening created by the first y. I base all of this on the fact that there are three basic rules a law need follow to be enforceable and effective. the "affordable" healthcare act broke all three. 

1: Step on as few toes as possible. Simple logic, the more toes you step on the more political and legal opposition you will face. Obamacare has half the nation up in arms. Because of that our legislature has practically ceased to function and the law itself has possibly ten years of litigation ahead of it. No law can stand well under that pressure. 
2: It must be simple. The more people a law involves, and the more stipulations it has the more one must check to ensure that the people are in compliance with the law. Its quite regular these days to have laws so large that investigating officials believe the investigated to be in compliance with the law despite the fact that the investigated are actually not complying with one or more stipulations in the law. 
3: It must be targeted. Much in the same way a pointed object penetrates better than a blunt its difficult to accomplish much shoving at everything at once. Pick one target at a time instead of every target.

These are not radical thoughts. They are logical and if anyone sat down and thought about them anyone would realize that. 



			
				Hakar Kerarmor said:
			
		

> And this is a very good example liberty vs greater good*.
> Does the company's liberty to do as they see fit trump my greater good of living on a habitable planet. I say it doesn't.



Tied this in with the above post. 

The supposition that we need to enforce contracts "for the common good" does not necessarily hold when logic is applied to it. Pollution is the current example provided. When a company produces waste they have the choice of containing it in property they do own or sending it to property someone else owns. Because the water including groundwater and the air are property of the general public said company would need to have the consent of the negotiator of the general public to "store" their waste in these locations. The chosen negotiator for the general public is the government. Therefore in order to pollute the water, the ground water and the air a corporation would need to reach an agreement with the government first in order to do so. Nobody is forcing a contract, said company can find other places or ways to deal with their waste. They could avoid public property altogether by sending their waste to space for example.

Further, if a company stores their waste on site, or stores it with consent on a private individual's property and that waste somehow manages to damage the public property, as in the air and the water as prime examples then that company is liable for the damages in the same way I would be liable for damages if I drove my car into another on purpose or through negligence. 

Consider, people are not public property. I am no more the property of my neighbor than you are. However, we both "own" public property such as the public air. This property is held and managed in trust by the government. However, because I am not property of the public, nor are you property of the public the government has no ownership stake to assert when forcing contractual obligations on my behalf with the corporation. In this way the government has no platform with which to base the justice of it enforcing a contract on my behalf. We cannot assert that the government can do this on the grounds that they represent me for corporations are owned and led by people and the government represents those people as well. If the government represents both of us then forcing or even negotiating a contract on behalf of one of two parties would be a conflict of interest. 

This brings up concerns about social favoritism. Can a government be "just" if it favors one group of the population over the other? Is that not something the United States has continually struggled with? Is not enforcing the will of one group of people the government represents against another the exact same in principle as segregation? As such we can see the forcing of contracts by the government for one group of its citizens against another cannot be justified if the system is designed to be fair. 

*lobar* to be honest I wanted to respond to you but to adequately lay out the logic above my post has become too long as it is.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 8, 2014)

Did I mention a decade of litigation challenging every facet of the "affordable" healthcare act? Yes I did. While your stewing over the hobby lobby ruling another case challenging a facet of the law is almost to the supreme court.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articl...cuit-court-of-appeals-could-destroy-obamacare


----------



## furspot (Jul 8, 2014)

Wow!  This is good.  I read all of the posts to this point, and I am impressed by the tone.  I love dealing with logical and rational folks. So let me add my opinion.




 Healthcare     is not a right. The framers did not include healthcare. As much as     we may want it to be a right, it is not.  Neither is English, free     food or free housing. Nope. Not sure where the idea came from.      Healthcare is a benefit used by employers to attract good workers.     (in the old days) 
 Employers     have standards.  Private companies are run for the benefit of the     owners, and according to their ideas.  HL offers a living wage, and     looses the income and benefit of being open on Sunday.  Good     healthcare plan as well.  They are consistent.  They are within     their rights to ask for a legal exemption for religious reasons.   
 


 The     employees of HL are not required to stay if they want something     different.  They can legally go out and start a competing store that     is open on Sunday and pays the staff minimum wage.   
 The     healthcare bill was written with the help of (shudder) Big Insurance     . Let me remind you that â€œinsuranceâ€ is not healthcare. It is     for the profit of the Insurance companies.  Count on it.  And big     government is helping.  
 

As an aside, blenders are a good allegory, because it shows the underlying principle from a more neutral view.   


In conclusion, I find that the discussion has been more pointed to expressing views and less about â€œwinningâ€ an argument.  In comparison with what I have been dealing with elsewhere, there have been relatively few (most are called out) logical fallacies presented as â€œfactâ€ on this thread. Yay!  Smart people.  Sorry for the numbering glitch.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 8, 2014)

furspot said:


> Wow!  This is good.  I read all of the posts to this point, and I am impressed by the tone.  I love dealing with logical and rational folks. So let me add my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would say that at this point, we need to define certain terms. For example, what exactly is a "Right"? Is it something we're entitled to, something automatically given to us, or something we're free to act on?


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 8, 2014)

furspot said:


> Wow!  This is good.  I read all of the posts to this point, and I am impressed by the tone.  I love dealing with logical and rational folks. So let me add my opinion. Healthcare    is not a right. The framers did not include healthcare. As much as     we may want it to be a right, it is not.  Neither is English, free     food or free housing. Nope. Not sure where the idea came from.      Healthcare is a benefit used by employers to attract good workers.     (in the old days)



No you are right, healthcare is not a right, it's a privilege. Only those who can afford good heath truly earned it and to those who cannot afford it, not lazy good for nothings who complain and bitch about the healthcare standard, or if they need to get a pace maker or a simple operation. However, you have the right to die somewhere if you cannot afford it. Death is free, good health is not! As a good hard working American, those people who complain should go to Canada. :V




> Employers   have standards.  Private companies are run for the benefit of the    owners, and according to their ideas.  HL offers a living wage, and     looses the income and benefit of being open on Sunday.  Good     healthcare plan as well.  They are consistent.  They are within     their rights to ask for a legal exemption for religious reasons.



True, and any other religious business has the right to their freedom of religion regardless. As a religious person myself, I find that people who drink are immoral, and for the pay I offer, I can also deny health insurance coverage to anyone that partakes in spirits, even if you drink a glass of wine or had a beer at a social gathering. Your sobriety is what makes my company's ideal shine bright! :V




> The  healthcare bill was written with the help of (shudder) Big Insurance     . Let me remind you that â€œinsuranceâ€ is not healthcare. It is  for the profit of the Insurance companies.  Count on it.  And big  government is helping.



Which is true. If it were implemented "Correctly", you'd see a rise in Medicaid and people using it. Insurance companies can flex the price as they see fit for basic premiums that cover 30% of the basic costs and coverage.

And it doesn't help that the government with poor implementations is giving them that right to have someone pay more for the bronze coverage, which then you'd have to pay out of pocket to cover at least part of it.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 9, 2014)

I'm still wondering what people think/believe rights are. I think if we're saying that healthcare is a "right" we need to define such a term.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 9, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I'm still wondering what people think/believe rights are. I think if we're saying that healthcare is a "right" we need to define such a term.



That is actually a very very astute thought. 

Looking at the United States constitution we have several amendments that people commonly say confer "rights". These amendments principally concern with things that the federal level of government cannot do to an individual. Therefore these are statements of liberties, or abilities for one to act without the fed's approval. These things are commonly called "rights". 

The definition of "right" is important because it concerns the reason for a society's founding, and its objectives. For example, rights to promote equality under the law would most likely mean freedoms from restriction. However rights intended to promote equality in terms of access to basic life needs would likely mean one is owed something by the public trust.

This distinction is important to note because it would be nearly impossible to construct a society which is designed to achieve both objectives completely.


----------



## furspot (Jul 10, 2014)

ceacar99 said:


> That is actually a very very astute thought.
> 
> Looking at the United States constitution we have several amendments that people commonly say confer "rights". These amendments principally concern with things that the federal level of government cannot do to an individual. Therefore these are statements of liberties, or abilities for one to act without the fed's approval. These things are commonly called "rights".
> 
> ...



One person held that the natural rights were "Life, Liberty, and Property". The framers changed the last one to "Pursuit of Happiness".  And attributed it to the "Creator".  If some institution, king, or government gives you a right, the fear is that it can be taken away.   Nicolini is correct in requesting a definition.  The problem is that defining what a "right' is has to be a thread of it's own.  It is deep philosophy.  How can a man holding slaves believe that a creator God has given liberty as a right to all creatures?  Send me a link If you start that thread.  

In other news, there is a new Hobby Lobby opening in California and I am applying for a job there.  As an (old married) guy, I don't care if birth control is included.  I had never heard of them until about a year ago when my kid moved to Oklahoma. Hoping for a good discount on furry items.  The listing on line shows a "How To Draw A Furry" book.


----------



## Troj (Jul 10, 2014)

I've had several conversations with people who didn't even understand the ruling, and who believed that the case was just about Hobby Lobby objecting to Obamacare. (As an aside, it never ceases to amaze me how vindictive and petty people become when Obama is involved, or they suspect he is.)

But, several folks changed their tune very quickly when I asked if they would be OK with their company's Jehovah Witness CEO denying coverage for blood transfusions.

More articles on the ruling from one of my favorite bloggers:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/06/30/hobby-lobby-reaction-round-up/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slackt...ght-conception-does-not-occur-at-ejaculation/


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 10, 2014)

Troj said:


> I've had several conversations with people who didn't even understand the ruling, and who believed that the case was just about Hobby Lobby objecting to Obamacare. (As an aside, it never ceases to amaze me how vindictive and petty people become when Obama is involved, or they suspect he is.)
> 
> But, several folks changed their tune very quickly when I asked if they would be OK with their company's Jehovah Witness CEO denying coverage for blood transfusions.
> 
> ...



The supreme court explained the rules on these exemptions. 1: The government must make any due effort not to substantially burden the free exercise of one's religion. In the case of hobby lobby they pointed out that the costs of the contraceptives including abortion could cost hobby lobby 1.3 MILLION per day. Thus it is a substantial burden. 2: If you have applied a substantial burden it must be for a compelling government interest. Clearly blood transfusions would fit that argument far better than contraception. 3: The manner in which the government interest is met must be the least restrictive possible.

Btw, the supreme court ruled in favor of hobby lobby principally on issue #3. As I said "make it simple", and "step on as few toes as possible". Obamacare failed at those and thus its loosing in court. 
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf (actual ruling of the court)

Looking at that denying blood transfusions may not hold up in court because a: they are cost sharing(thus reduced burden), b: its a compelling interest as in someone WILL DIE. Contraceptives cannot make that claim. The problem is c: "is it the least restrictive way this could have been done?"


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 10, 2014)

Religion shouldn't trounce a decision based on medical evidence when the religious belief is medically incorrect. :\ In this case no zygote is destroyed [for some reason many christians view zygotes as sacred]
It is in the interest of society in general to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring because that means more costly measures which are even more religiously controversial- like abortion, will result, as well as the birth of unwanted children. 

Women can and do die from getting ectopic pregnancies and complications in the pregnancy and birthing process, but never mind.


Essentially, this is one reason why the rest of the west views the USA as politically backward.


----------



## Misomie (Jul 10, 2014)

The point is what they were covering DOES NOT trample their beliefs. Their opinion trumped SCIENCE. There is something incredibly wrong with that and if people can't see that, something is screwed up with society.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 10, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Religion shouldn't trounce a decision based on medical evidence when the religious belief is medically incorrect. :\ In this case no zygote is destroyed [for some reason many christians view zygotes as sacred]
> It is in the interest of society in general to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring because that means more costly measures which are even more religiously controversial- like abortion, will result, as well as the birth of unwanted children.
> 
> Women can and do die from getting ectopic pregnancies and complications in the pregnancy and birthing process, but never mind.
> ...



So the other 16 contraceptives can't prevent pregnancy? Geez, those must be lousy contraceptives!

In addition, employees are still free to purchase the other 4 if they want to. A full time employee - which need I remind you makes no less than $14/hr - working a normal 40 hour work week can afford the Plan B Onestep (average cost: $48 ) in HALF A DAY; a part time - who is paid no less than $9/hr - working a 40 hour work week can afford it in half a day.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 10, 2014)

ceacar99 said:


> Looking at that denying blood transfusions may not hold up in court because a: they are cost sharing(thus reduced burden), b: its a compelling interest as in someone WILL DIE. Contraceptives cannot make that claim. The problem is c: "is it the least restrictive way this could have been done?"



Blood transfusions in comparison to Abortions aren't too  different  cost-wise. It's a moot point.

And contraceptives have multiple usages other than preventing pregnancy, especially the pill itself having multiple uses. As it stands, it just comes down to belief. 



> Since RFRA applies in these cases, we must decide
> whether the challenged HHS regulations substantially
> burden the exercise of religion, and we hold that they do.
> The owners of the businesses have religious objections to
> ...



And reading through it more, it seems that the SCOTUS is more "pick and choose" depending on who takes the case, it seems.

In addition,



> If the companies continue to offer group health
> plans that do not cover the contraceptives at issue, they
> will be taxed $100 per day for each affected individual. 26
> U. S. C. Â§4980D. For Hobby Lobby, the bill could amount
> ...



The reason why they went to court over this is probably because of this line if they went with a healthcare insurance company that did not cover contraceptives as part of their policy. And for each employee, it does add up.

To sum up this shitstorm, it isn't "Because it's expensive", it's more of "I found a group coverage that supports my beliefs, but it's too expensive because the group coverage charges more for exempting one type of healthcare benefit. Let's cry to the SCOTUS so we can get a free pass". Which means that the company can exercise their beliefs without having to worry about a tax for not covering a  group healthcare benefit. With most people believing that birth control is strictly used for sex, it makes the whole thing redonkulous. 

And not talking about scrambling a fetus and sucking it through a vacuum. More on the line of contraceptives. :V


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 10, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> Religion shouldn't trounce a decision based on medical evidence when the religious belief is medically incorrect. :\ In this case no zygote is destroyed [for some reason many christians view zygotes as sacred]
> It is in the interest of society in general to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring because that means more costly measures which are even more religiously controversial- like abortion, will result, as well as the birth of unwanted children.
> 
> Women can and do die from getting ectopic pregnancies and complications in the pregnancy and birthing process, but never mind.
> ...





			
				Misomie said:
			
		

> The point is what they were covering DOES NOT trample their beliefs. Their opinion trumped SCIENCE. There is something incredibly wrong with that and if people can't see that, something is screwed up with society.



There was no statement overriding what medical experts recommend. The ruling concerned only WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IT IS TO PAY FOR IT. Thus the ruling is "Hobby Lobby has the right to refuse to pay for contraception".

An argument between responsibility and liability is completely different than an argument about the correctness of medical science.... Thus your insinuations and assertions "Hobby Lobby trumped science!" are false. 

And btw, preventative contraception is not a life saving treatment... Its more like a helmet. The helmet is nice to have if your riding a bike and can reduce the risk associated with it but it is useless if your just sitting there. Even though sex is nice, any scientific evidence stating "sex is a requirement to maintain good health" is dubious at best. Therefore its an enjoyment activity with risk associated, it should not be the responsibility of others to provide completely out of their pocket the safety equipment for this enjoyment activity.

FURTHER, if we argue "sex is required for good health in my life" AND "The public, or the employer should pay for the required needs to have sex to maintain my good health" then you are creating a logic base that would also support requiring the state or employers to pay for prostitutes, because again we have stated sex is necessary to health and people should provide the funding so this can happen. Clearly that's not a conclusion any one of us would desire right?


----------



## Troj (Jul 10, 2014)

ceacar99 said:


> The supreme court explained the rules on these exemptions. 1: The government must make any due effort not to substantially burden the free exercise of one's religion. In the case of hobby lobby they pointed out that the costs of the contraceptives including abortion could cost hobby lobby 1.3 MILLION per day. Thus it is a substantial burden. 2: If you have applied a substantial burden it must be for a compelling government interest. Clearly blood transfusions would fit that argument far better than contraception. 3: The manner in which the government interest is met must be the least restrictive possible.
> 
> Btw, the supreme court ruled in favor of hobby lobby principally on issue #3. As I said "make it simple", and "step on as few toes as possible". Obamacare failed at those and thus its loosing in court.
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf (actual ruling of the court)
> ...



Fair points and considerations. 

Contraception is not the same as a blood transfusion--however, some women DO take oral contraception to ease symptoms associated with other health ailments.

I don't know if I'm equipped to argue the idea of "substantial burden" from a legal standpoint, but from an ethical standpoint, you could make the argument that a lot of ethically correct acts place a "substantial" burden on actors, but that's not enough of an excuse to opt out of doing them. But, there you get into the realm of philosophy.

It strikes me that a number of the large companies that are trying to fight Obamacare (which itself is flawed, yes) just don't give a flying fuck about their employees, and want to do the absolute bare minimum for them. That puts me right off.

From there, Hobby Lobby's stated moral objections to contraception (ehmehgerd abortifacents!) are pure unadulterated bullshit from a scientific standpoint, besides being just plain hypocritical.

I'm wondering how long it'll take some company to attempt to deny coverage for vaccinations because they "believe" that vaccines cause autism. I can see somebody trying it, at least, whether or not they get away with it.

But, of course, a lot of this is tainted by my own sense of right and wrong, and my own long-standing beef with fundie-owned companies.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 10, 2014)

(I hope you don't mind I made this all one paragraph to make this entire post appear shorter)


			
				Troj said:
			
		

> It strikes me that a number of the large companies that are trying to fight Obamacare (which itself is flawed, yes) just don't give a flying fuck about their employees, and want to do the absolute bare minimum for them. That puts me right off. *From there, Hobby Lobby's stated moral objections to contraception (ehmehgerd abortifacents!) are pure unadulterated bullshit from a scientific standpoint,* besides being just plain hypocritical. I'm wondering how long it'll take some company to attempt to deny coverage for vaccinations because they "believe" that vaccines cause autism. I can see somebody trying it, at least, whether or not they get away with it.



Definition of terms: for the sake of this argument empirical and scientific will be synonymous. As in "something that is observable and measurable". This will make for easier reading. 

One points out that morality is not empirical. Can one see good? Can one feel good? Can one identify its parts? Mankind has argued about what "good" is for longer than you can imagine. If "good" were scientific and therefore observable and measurable it would be resolved by now. Therefore moral statements contain no true or false value in the scientific sense. They instead are commands. "Contraception is wrong to use" is not a statement of facts. Its a command statement "do not use contraception". It is not a statement "contraception can help people" or "Contraception is bad for people" which can be true OR false. Moral statements are commands which possess no truth value. 

Ethical systems are often comprised of a scientific fact + a non scientific "fact" = a command statement(the moral law). 

Example: "People need access to contraception for good health"(Scientific fact, we can observe and test it) + "It is the duty of the government or employers to provide for the health of everyone"(non scientific fact. We cannot observe or test this) = "Corporations must provide contraception"(a command statement that has no truth value, as in it cannot be argued against in the normal sense. You would have to argue against one of the factors leading up to that command)

Therefore, Hobby Lobby was not contesting scientific fact. They were contesting non scientific logic. As in the statement "companies are morally required to provide..." Because they are contesting non scientific logic they need not argue from a scientific standpoint. *Therefore* someone else "arguing that vaccines cause autism" is not the same thing. That would be contesting scientific fact and logic and it would not stand up in court because scientific experts would be the determining factor. Science is much easier to solve than non scientific logic.


----------



## furspot (Jul 10, 2014)

ceacar99 said:


> The supreme court explained the rules on these exemptions. 1: The government must make any due effort not to substantially burden the free exercise of one's religion. In the case of hobby lobby they pointed out that the costs of the contraceptives including abortion could cost hobby lobby 1.3 MILLION per day. Thus it is a substantial burden. 2: If you have applied a substantial burden it must be for a compelling government interest. Clearly blood transfusions would fit that argument far better than contraception. 3: The manner in which the government interest is met must be the least restrictive possible.
> 
> Btw, the supreme court ruled in favor of hobby lobby principally on issue #3. As I said "make it simple", and "step on as few toes as possible". Obamacare failed at those and thus its loosing in court.
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf (actual ruling of the court)
> ...



The issue is that it takes an effort to read the ruling and find out what it is all about.  It is not an easy 3 minute read, and you have to understand the vocabulary.  Too many people don't take the time to make the effort.  But they are allowed to vote. 

Re. Fallowfox, Religion is outside the purview of science.  By definition, the supernatural is above nature.  Faith is often based on that which can not be proven by science.  Most (all?) gods operate in an area that is clearly outside the laws of nature. Except if your religion is Science. then all actions are reproducible with the same results. Each time.  Comforting.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 10, 2014)

ceacar99 said:


> There was no statement overriding what medical experts recommend. The ruling concerned only WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IT IS TO PAY FOR IT. Thus the ruling is "Hobby Lobby has the right to refuse to pay for contraception".
> 
> An argument between responsibility and liability is completely different than an argument about the correctness of medical science.... Thus your insinuations and assertions "Hobby Lobby trumped science!" are false.
> 
> ...



The objection to the contraceptives in question, such as the emergency contraceptive pill, are based on the notion that it is an abortion pill, which it is not. 

Nobody is bringing any arguments recommending promiscuous sex to the table. People have sex, and this is an effective means to manage any negative health manifestations. Providing a diversity of contraceptive options improves the efficacy of these technologies, which is why it is worth requiring businesses to provide them in health plans.

It's a good justification, but it is being overruled because of very convoluted notions of responsibility that are motivated by an unfortunate misconception about what these technologies actually do. They are neither abortion pills or licenses to be promiscuous.



furspot said:


> The issue is that it takes an effort to read the  ruling and find out what it is all about.  It is not an easy 3 minute  read, and you have to understand the vocabulary.  Too many people don't  take the time to make the effort.  But they are allowed to vote.
> 
> Re. Fallowfox, Religion is outside the purview of science.  By  definition, the supernatural is above nature.  Faith is often based on  that which can not be proven by science.  Most (all?) gods operate in an  area that is clearly outside the laws of nature. Except if your  religion is Science. then all actions are reproducible with the same  results. Each time.  Comforting.




I'm sorry, could you elucidate your point, please? Are you trying to suggest that basing medical policy on evidence is a _bad_ thing? 

I want my medical technology and drugs to be reproducible, I want them to work effectively each time. We can set about making a healthier society if people use these technologies effectively. 

But many people would rather moan about bronze age religious intonations and bicker about responsibility, rather than seize the opportunity to improve human health. How can anybody view this as defensible?


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 10, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm sorry, could you elucidate your point, please? Are you trying to suggest that basing medical policy on evidence is a _bad_ thing?
> 
> I want my medical technology and drugs to be reproducible, I want them to work effectively each time. We can set about making a healthier society if people use these technologies effectively.
> 
> But many people would rather moan about bronze age religious intonations and bicker about responsibility, rather than seize the opportunity to improve human health. How can anybody view this as defensible?



I had to re-read that post to understand it. 
But then it just increased my headache. 

But you have to remember; this is America. Our pure Christian faith trumps your rights and the socialist agenda. Providing contraceptives to those sluts who have premarital sex will help reduce premarital sex. that's a fact. :V

And Hobby Lobbys is doing all you heathens a favor and providing such care despite that porch monkey arab Obamanation and his socialist obamacare. :V


----------



## Troj (Jul 10, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> The objection to the contraceptives in question, such as the emergency contraceptive pill, are based on the notion that it is an abortion pill, which it is not.



Precisely. This is what I was getting at when I said that their stated moral objection to contraception is bullshit, as well as being, again, hypocritical.

(But, my sense has always been that religious objections to abortion and contraception are rooted more in a desire to control people (especially women) than in the desire to somehow save babies. By their fruits ye shall know them, and the fruits consistently point to not really giving a crap about children when giving a crap would be inconvenient.)

If a company believes they shouldn't have to pay for employees' healthcare (say, because fuck you got mine) then that's certainly something that can be debated or discussed.

If a company believes that they shouldn't have to pay for a particular aspect of their employees' healthcare because it's too costly, that can also be debated or discussed to an extent.

If a company believes they shouldn't have to pay for "abortifacents" that are NOT actually abortifacents, then that's a rubbish excuse that can be tossed out right away.

Hobby Lobby has tried to ride the rails of the above rubbish excuse.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 10, 2014)

Fallowfox said:
			
		

> The objection to the contraceptives in question, such as the emergency contraceptive pill, are based on the notion that it is an abortion pill, which it is not.
> 
> Nobody is bringing any arguments recommending promiscuous sex to the table. People have sex, and this is an effective means to manage any negative health manifestations. Providing a diversity of contraceptive options improves the efficacy of these technologies, which is why it is worth requiring businesses to provide them in health plans.
> 
> It's a good justification, but it is being overruled because of very convoluted notions of responsibility that are motivated by an unfortunate misconception about what these technologies actually do. They are neither abortion pills or licenses to be promiscuous.





			
				Troj said:
			
		

> If a company believes they shouldn't have to pay for "abortifacents" that are NOT actually abortifacents, then that's a rubbish excuse that can be tossed out right away.
> 
> Hobby Lobby has tried to ride the rails of the above rubbish excuse.



Because the argument that hobby lobby or its opponent are not scientific then one cannot expect them to be completely based on science. As in "contraception is moral" is not something we can see and test. Therefore the statement "(based upon our religion) Contraception is the same as abortion"(a statement based upon a construct outside of science) + "Abortion is immoral"(Another non scientific statement) = "Our religion holds that all forms of birth prevention are wrong" is not something that is contesting science, it is outside of science. 

IF they were contesting science then there would have been experts asked to the court to disprove them in the field of science. However they were not. 

I've done a fair bit of searching and I have yet to find however that hobby lobby publicly stated that "Contraceptives are the same as abortion" or the like. As such their religious standpoint is more similar to the old Catholic "Contraception is just wrong" with no logic structure behind it or anything. Its simply a stand alone religious based moral statement.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_13_354
Try to find the argument where hobby lobby stated "contraception is the same as abortion". Because As far as I can see from the actual arguments in the case they did not.



			
				Troj said:
			
		

> Precisely. This is what I was getting at when I said that their stated moral objection to contraception is bullshit, as well as being, again, hypocritical.
> 
> (But, my sense has always been that religious objections to abortion and contraception are rooted more in a desire to control people (especially women) than in the desire to somehow save babies. By their fruits ye shall know them, and the fruits consistently point to not really giving a crap about children when giving a crap would be inconvenient.)



Well this sort of ties into my statements before that "I told you that this would probably happen in some fashion". Hobby Lobby found a clause in our legal system to contest a part of the "Affordable" Healthcare Act and thereby weaken it. People stepped on by the law will continue to do so until the law is so shot full of holes its non functional. Whether they are actually "religious" or not actually doesn't matter under the law because its already been well established that a court cannot "test someone's faith or sincerity in religion" nor can the court rule "what is a central principle to the religion"


----------



## Troj (Jul 10, 2014)

I'm speaking based on my general familiarity with American evangelical Christian beliefs, and based on the fact that Alito himself wrote:



> [W]e must decide whether the challenged  HHS regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion, and we  hold that they do. The owners of the businesses have religious  objections to abortion, *and according to their religious beliefs* the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients.



So, there you go: the objection here is that the contraceptives on trial are "abortifacents."

Here is where the ruling gets tricky, to my mind:



> As this description of our reasoning  shows, our holding is very specific. We do not hold, as the principal  dissent alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial  enterprises can â€œopt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge  incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.â€





> In any event, our decision in these cases  is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should  not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must  necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employerâ€™s religious beliefs.  Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by  different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of  infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least  restrictive means of providing them.



I'm seeing a religious test loophole there--and if I'm not too cynical, I'm also catching a very faint scent of "Of course we can test religious beliefs that are clearly WEIRD and DUMB."

The Wonkette blog seems to be right in its analysis that Alito definitely put air quotes around "gender equality" and "public health."

I also appreciated this analysis of the case:  The Hobby Lobby Decision: A Summary and Explanation



			
				above said:
			
		

> So in summary, these are the big issues:
> 1. Substantial burden analysis is empty.  Just claim that something  burdens your religion, and the Court is fine with you relying on  blatantly false statements (x pill is an abortifacient) and does not  care if you rely on illogical leaps (an employee using an insurance card  I gave them to purchase birth control affects my religious beliefs but  an employee using the paycheck I gave them to purchase birth control  does not) or attenuated connections (even if I never know whether an  employee ever uses their health insurance to use this particular  contraceptive, my religious beliefs are still burdened).
> 2. The religious non-profit workaround was crucial to the majorityâ€™s  decision that there is a less restrictive means available.  But that  workaround is also currently being challenged as a violation of RFRA.   What will happen if the workaround is struck down too?
> 3. Corporations now have an incentive to adopt anti-healthcare  religious beliefs in order to avoid paying for insurance coverage.  Each  healthcare procedure/prescription will have to be analyzed under strict  scrutiny, to see whether the government actually has a compelling  interest to see that you get that kind of coverage and whether the  government has used the least restrictive means possible to provide you  with that coverage. It would be far simpler to go directly to a single  payer systemâ€”but weâ€™re not getting that through Congress anytime soon.   The Court has thus empowered the Religious Right to chip away at the ACA  case by case.




Interesting:  HL Decision Actually Guarantees Contraception Coverage

Funny and scathing: 
Here Is All The Worst Supreme Court Suck On The Hobby Lobby Ruling For Ladyparts Only




			
				above article said:
			
		

> So, letâ€™s play a little game. Letâ€™s  imagine that the government says, â€œOK, you black-robed bastards, we will  use taxpayer dollars to pay for contraception that some people consider  abortion, just like you say we should, because yes, we actually do  believe it is that important.â€
> What do you think the conservative fundamentalists who believe  their beliefs very a lot will say next? Do you think they might object  to the government paying for something that they consider abortion even  though it is not? Do you think they might invoke, say, the Hyde Amendment to say the government canâ€™t do that? Or maybe Executive Order 13535,  signed by President Obama, saying (slight paraphrase), â€œNo, seriously,  for reals, you guys, the government will not pay for abortionsâ€?



Brief and to the point:  Hobby Lobby Wasn't About Religious Freedom; It Was About Abortion

Of course, if the government just steps in and pays for folks' coverage, I'll be happy as a clam--but, naturally, the conservatives will be up in arms about that, too.


----------



## furspot (Jul 11, 2014)

I'm sorry, could you elucidate your point, please? Are you trying to suggest that basing medical policy on evidence is a _bad_ thing? 

I want my medical technology and drugs to be reproducible, I want them  to work effectively each time. We can set about making a healthier  society if people use these technologies effectively. 

But many people would rather moan about bronze age religious intonations  and bicker about responsibility, rather than seize the opportunity to  improve human health. How can anybody view this as defensible?[/QUOTE]

No, I am not trying to suggest that basing medical policy on evidence is a _bad_  thing. Medical policy is based on politics and the money trail.   Medical policy is rarely based on evidence. The Obama administration  turned to the Medical insurance companies to help draft the legislation  because they were against it as it stood.  After helping to draft the  legislation, they helped to pass it. The Insurance industry wanted to  keep making a profit.  

Science holds that an experiment must be  reproducible by other scientists. It is part of the scientific method  for isolating variables to show causation.  Nothing to do with the  production of drugs or medical teck.  Not what I was talking about.  

Your  complaint about "many people would rather moan..."  is the classic  Straw man fallacy.  Wasn't HL providing health care to its employees  before the government came in and told them that they had to?  And  wasn't providing healthcare something they did because of their faith?  "  A workman is worthy of his hire."


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 11, 2014)

ceacar99 said:


> Because the argument that hobby lobby or its opponent are not scientific then one cannot expect them to be completely based on science. As in "contraception is moral" is not something we can see and test. Therefore the statement "(based upon our religion) Contraception is the same as abortion"(a statement based upon a construct outside of science) + "Abortion is immoral"(Another non scientific statement) = "Our religion holds that all forms of birth prevention are wrong" is not something that is contesting science, it is outside of science.
> 
> IF they were contesting science then there would have been experts asked to the court to disprove them in the field of science. However they were not.
> 
> ...



The best argument you have is that their view on contraception is arbitrary. Even if this were the case, a good medical argument that has proven its merit to be included in insurance policies is to be overridden by that? 

It is not too much to ask that a moral objection be demonstrated to produce a better societal outcome. What is morality for but that?



furspot said:


> No, I am not trying to suggest that basing medical policy on evidence is a _bad_   thing. Medical policy is based on politics and the money trail.    Medical policy is rarely based on evidence. The Obama administration   turned to the Medical insurance companies to help draft the legislation   because they were against it as it stood.  After helping to draft the   legislation, they helped to pass it. The Insurance industry wanted to   keep making a profit.
> 
> Science holds that an experiment must be  reproducible by other  scientists. It is part of the scientific method  for isolating variables  to show causation.  Nothing to do with the  production of drugs or  medical teck.  Not what I was talking about.
> 
> Your  complaint about "many people would rather moan..."  is the classic   Straw man fallacy.  Wasn't HL providing health care to its employees   before the government came in and told them that they had to?  And   wasn't providing healthcare something they did because of their faith?  "   A workman is worthy of his hire."



My criticism 'many people' was explicitly phrased 'many' rather than 'all' because I know charitable people exist, furspot. Try to keep up. 

Thanks for explaining your point of view on science, although it is a naive one. At last your country is shifting towards a form of health policy that current analysis suggests should work. Almost all other western nations already have more developed health policies and, consequentially, far better health outcomes. 

But religion is permitted to claw and rip at trends towards evidence-based politics, without the assertion of any evidence at all. I'm sure this is music to the ears of ceacar and other libertarians when it achieves something they like...but what if the tables turned?


----------



## Troj (Jul 11, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> But religion is permitted to claw and rip at trends towards evidence-based politics, without the assertion of any evidence at all.



My sentiments exactly.

I am sick and tired of American society offering so much deference to religion, and allowing religious adherents to spew horseshit and behave badly because they really truly deeply BELIEVE something. 

I am sick of religious acquaintances thinking that "It's just what I believe" ends the conversation and grants them a "win."

I am sick of "belief" trumping facts, and overriding people's rights and dignity.

I know we can't legally test people's sincerity vis-a-vis their beliefs, but our civilization will go right over a cliff if we take "It's just my belief" as the final word in every case. At some point, you've got to say, "That's nice, sugartits, but your beliefs are wrong."


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 11, 2014)

Troj said:


> My sentiments exactly.
> 
> I am sick and tired of American society offering so much deference to religion, and allowing religious adherents to spew horseshit and behave badly because they really truly deeply BELIEVE something.
> 
> ...



So basically you're saying that we shouldn't be accommodating towards religious people at all, and to hell with their beliefs, essentially?


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 11, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> So basically you're saying that we shouldn't be accommodating towards religious people at all, and to hell with their beliefs, essentially?



That isn't what troj was saying and you know it. Troj explicitly stated she deplored belief superseding fact, the rights of others and people's dignity. 

Eroding the standard of health insurance the government has decided people are rightfully entitled to is such a case.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 11, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> That isn't what troj was saying and you know it. Troj explicitly stated she deplored belief superseding fact, the rights of others and people's dignity.
> 
> Eroding the standard of health insurance the government has decided people are rightfully entitled to is such a case.



But it's okay to supersede the rights of religious people in this case? That is, the right to follow through with their beliefs as they see fit? As demonstrated by an earlier post by caesar99, it was found that paying for the four birth control pills was considered a notable burden on HL; not only that but HL feels that using those said four pills is immoral to them, and they would not like to provide them. And it's also been claimed that full and part time employees working a normal 40 hour work week can afford said pills within a day's work. 

But see, what you're calling for is the sacrifice of one's rights in favor of the upholding of another's rights.


----------



## Troj (Jul 11, 2014)

Thank you, Fallowfox, you're exactly right. Nikolinni, you're being dense or disingenuous. 

I see a pretty sizable difference between, "I believe Jesus Christ was the son of God, died on the cross for our sins, and rose from the dead three days later," and "I believe gay people are vile, depraved sinners, and that they practice a 'lifestyle' that is spiritually and morally inferior to mine" or "I don't believe in the fossil record, because reasons" or "I believe not conceiving a child in the first place is equivalent to abortion, because reasons."

I also see a big difference between, "I believe Muhammad was the final prophet of God," and "I believe women deserve to be stoned for showing their ankles or marrying a non-believer" or "I believe anyone who doodles a sketch of Muhammad deserves to die."

I have no problem with people having beliefs or opinions that are subjective, or that relate to matters that are beyond our knowledge or comprehension, or that don't involve or affect people who don't share those beliefs.

I have a _big_ problem with people holding beliefs or opinions that contradict established facts or well-established common knowledge, or that lead to the violation of other beings' rights and dignity.

If you can practice your religion in a way that allows you to embrace reality and function in it, and that allows you to get along peaceably with other people in society, mazel tov, and my blessings to you!

If you can't practice your religion in such a manner, then maybe your religion deserves to go the way of the dinosaurs.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 11, 2014)

Troj said:


> Thank you, Fallowfox, you're exactly right. Nikolinni, you're being dense or disingenuous.
> 
> I see a pretty sizable difference between, "I believe Jesus Christ was the son of God, died on the cross for our sins, and rose from the dead three days later," and "I believe gay people are vile, depraved sinners, and that they practice a 'lifestyle' that is spiritually and morally inferior to mine" or "I don't believe in the fossil record, because reasons" or "I believe not conceiving a child in the first place is equivalent to abortion, because reasons."
> 
> ...



I think I was just being a tad bit dense x.x this is why you don't post (or watch radar) without any coffee. 

Anyways, when you put it like that, then yes, I get all of that. I think religion should work to...er...work in society and we shouldn't have people calling for others' deaths because they sketched their prophet. 

The only thing that first example has to do with this case though (first of your examples I mean) is how the four blocked could work to stop fertillization. Though from what I've read, they basically all just somehow prevent the zygote from doing whatever it needs to do, and to a lot of religious people the zygote = human life. So all these pills basically do things that end up with the zygote dying off, and we have (as one site called it) a "chemical abortion". 

(please note: I am not saying I endorse these ideas, this is merely my findings upon embarking on the www for answers)

Though saying that the mere act of preventing fertilization in the first place, be it with condoms or pills, is akin to abortion I think is ridiculous.


----------



## Troj (Jul 11, 2014)

Abortion is a heady, complicated issue.

I hope it's pretty obvious that a sperm or an egg is different from a zygote, and that a zygote is different from, say, a three-month-old fetus, and that a three-month-old fetus is different from a five-day-old to-term baby. It grinds my gears that the pro-life regularly uses the _intentionally _emotionally-loaded word "baby" to describe, for instance, a week-old clump of cells. It's just plain dishonest, so people need to cut that shit out.

It's been well established that when women in particular have access to health care and contraceptive options and knowledge, abortion rates go down. (Abortion rates actually consistently INCREASE when Republican presidents are in office, versus Democratic ones, and it largely has to do with health care funding and access.) In countries where abortion is illegal, that typically leads to women seeking dangerous, unsafe, late-term back-alley abortions, or (if they can afford to travel) getting abortions in countries where abortion is legal.

Research has definitely demonstrated that the abstinence-only "True Love Waits" horsecrap fails miserably, because the youngsters who come out of those programs have sex at just about the same rates as other youngsters, but are _much _less likely to use contraception.

Additionally: if you're pregnant, your risk of miscarrying before 20 weeks is between 15% to 20%. If pro-lifers care so much about DA BABEEZ, why haven't they poured funding into miscarriage and premature delivery research? 

In that vein: If children are so valuable and important, why do self-identified pro-lifers consistently try to de-fund or de-fang government assistance and school lunch programs designed to help children and mothers in poverty?

Finally, popular contraceptives like Plan B are NOT abortifacents, no matter how many times conservatives scream the word, as preventing an egg from being fertilized is _not_ the same thing as aborting a fertilized egg. (While we're covering the bases here, there is also no evidence to back the hysterical claim that getting an HPV vaccine [Gardisil] magically turns people [especially teenage girls] into dirty, dirty sluts who feel they can have all the unprotected sex their filthy hearts desire.)

If Protestant conservatives want to go the Catholic or Quiverfull route, they should at least be honest about it.

Bottom line, research and practice have indicated that the popular "liberal" approach to sexual health and healthcare _generally_ results in better health outcomes, increased patient awareness, and decreased abortion rates, relative to the popular "conservative" (especially conservative Christian) approach. 

The mainstream conservative approach and attitude to the whole issue effectively consists of swimming upstream, and expecting everyone else to follow suit. They want to restrict access to contraception and to sexual health information, and they believe that this won't somehow lead to unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs. It's nuts.

Relevant: Conception does not occur at ejaculation

Fascinating: The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion (About when pro-life women get abortions)


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 11, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> But it's okay to supersede the rights of religious people in this case? That is, the right to follow through with their beliefs as they see fit? As demonstrated by an earlier post by caesar99, it was found that paying for the four birth control pills was considered a notable burden on HL; not only that but HL feels that using those said four pills is immoral to them, and they would not like to provide them. And it's also been claimed that full and part time employees working a normal 40 hour work week can afford said pills within a day's work.
> 
> But see, what you're calling for is the sacrifice of one's rights in favor of the upholding of another's rights.



Yes it is right, because their reason to change health insurance plans is changing other people's entitlements, which should be guaranteed by government. To do that you should have a good reason. Religious reasons just shouldn't cut it. 

The right to the same healthcare standards as others, which have been widely agreed upon in government, is more important than the right to prevent other people accessing drugs and tech you have a religious objection to- especially when that objection is erroneous and originates from a poor understanding of how the contraceptives work.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 11, 2014)

Troj said:
			
		

> So, there you go: the objection here is that the contraceptives on trial are "abortifacents."



Hmm, the second link I provided the lawyer for Hobby Lobby actually made no mention of the specifics of the belief and contraceptives. But you did find that in the ruling, so they considered it. 

The problem I see is how inconsistent it is. A religion can denounce all contraception techniques as "a form of abortion"(preventing a pregnancy that god have allowed or whatever), however its hard to argue logically in the western tradition that only four types are equivalent to abortion. Have you found any of the actual arguments concerning why just four? That had to be addressed at one level of the court system. Its too open of a hole not to be exploited. 



			
				Fallowfox said:
			
		

> The best argument you have is that their view on contraception is arbitrary. Even if this were the case, a good medical argument that has proven its merit to be included in insurance policies is to be overridden by that?
> 
> It is not too much to ask that a moral objection be demonstrated to produce a better societal outcome. What is morality for but that?
> ...
> But religion is permitted to claw and rip at trends towards evidence-based politics, without the assertion of any evidence at all. I'm sure this is music to the ears of ceacar and other libertarians when it achieves something they like...but what if the tables turned?



Lets get a couple things straight. I can't be defined as a "libertarian" because of various political concepts that I agree with. The most basic of which is libertarians believe the United States should refrain from making foreign ties and obligations(such as alliances). I feel that alliances are a necessity in the power game that is the world. 

The next major issue is defining "better societal outcome". As demonstrated in my posts above statements like that are morality statements (you are asserting in that statement that I should act according to your social view) and as such they are command statements. The logic behind them at the very best only partially contains Empirical logic. As such there is no factual "better societal outcome" in the empirical sense, the closest we can get is simply agreeing upon a definition like "a societal outcome that most would agree with", or "a societal outcome that people whom I respect feel is best". Its actually funny because this relationship demonstrates the importance to emotion in decision making and higher reasoning. In the absence of emotion(pure empiricism) ANYTHING is "moral" (the ends justify the means), Likewise in the other direction you see the same situation (as in declaring something to be moral before viewing the consequences and developing self interest)

Anyway, on one end I'm happy that this law is being shot to hell. Its hardly "affordable". Requiring everyone buy luxury levels of insurance really doesn't suit the idea of affordable. Its also implemented in a ham fisted manner. Most importantly it has half the country up in arms. However, I realize that should it be destroyed the other half of the nation is likely to be incensed. The passage of that bill instead of a far more targeted and reasonable option really was the casting of a curse upon the peaceful co-operation and stability of my country. The thing is like cancer. Even if you cut the tumor itself out the body may still not survive.



			
				Troj said:
			
		

> I have a big problem with people holding beliefs or opinions that contradict established facts or well-established common knowledge, or that lead to the violation of other beings' rights and dignity.



Nikolinni brought up again the subject of rights which is important to this discussion. As Nikolinni  said, can you sacrifice one person's rights to provide the rights of another? 

That is why I made such a big deal about the definition of rights, as well as the reason why a society is created. A society with rights to create legal equality is a society in which you cannot sacrifice one person's rights to create "rights" for another. A society designed for "economic equality" is incompatible with that and necessitates "rights" being suspended so others can have more "rights". 

Essentially it boils down to the difference of "rights" being legal liberties and non property related entitlements, as in freedoms that the government cannot infringe upon Vs "rights" being social guarantied property entitlements such as minimum income or other assets. 

This ties into again what is "better" for society. Is a society better off with the foundation that everyone legally speaking is equal to the other, or is a society better with the foundation that nobody is legally equal to the other so that we can ensure that everyone has access to at least enough assets to meet life needs? If we define being "backwards" as ignoring the needs and feelings of others we cannot claim either of these paths are "backwards". That is because they are both considering different sets of peoples needs and feelings.


----------



## Troj (Jul 11, 2014)

There are times when rights clash, absolutely.

I tend to apply a pragmatic utilitarian approach in those cases, by considering how much involved parties each stand to lose or gain in the conflict _over the long term_, and how many individuals will be affected (for good or ill) by a given outcome long-term. 

I also consider how different potential outcomes do or don't sync up with our stated society-wide goals and dreams. There are tried-and-true ways of helping people and societies to become happier, healthier, more autonomous, more economically prosperous, more well-educated, safer, and so on and so forth, and history has shown that there are also standard ways things royally go to shit in those areas. 

In any case, I really don't have much sympathy for multi-millionaires who are sad about having to spend a million dollars on services or salaries for people who might otherwise suffer (or in some cases, die) without that support. I don't think Papa John's "right" to take a ski trip to Aspen, for example, trumps his worker's "right" to, say, not die from a treatable illness--quite the opposite, in fact!

I also don't have much sympathy for people who whine about government intervention or intrusion until it's THEIR Social Security check that's on the line, or they hit a few deep potholes on the highway, or the cops or fire department takes too long to respond to their 911 call. It's the Little Red Hen syndrome all over.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 11, 2014)

The outcomes being discussed is a well-established suppression of the health problems associated with unwanted pregnancy, in addition to a lower abortion rate. 

Does anybody here have a moral objection to that? 

This outcome is more important than a business's objection to contraceptive technology on religious ground. 

Whether or not the current direction of American Health policy is something you agree with is not relevant. We should all want decisions about health policy to be made because they will produce the best health outcomes, rather than because they will adhere to tenuous religious concerns. Maybe that will produce a policy very different to your current one, but if health outcomes aren't prioritised it would be very unlikely that an efficacious health system will be produced. 

Lots of other countries in the west have already managed to produce health policy that produces superior outcomes to the American system, because their politicians usually try to aim for better outcomes, instead of this 'culture war' ideology battle you have in the states.


----------



## Ozriel (Jul 11, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> The outcomes being discussed is a well-established suppression of the health problems associated with unwanted pregnancy, in addition to a lower abortion rate.
> 
> Does anybody here have a moral objection to that?
> 
> ...



Hey man, if poor people cant pay they should die. :V


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 11, 2014)

Fallowfox said:
			
		

> Lots of other countries in the west have already managed to produce health policy that produces superior outcomes to the American system, because their politicians usually try to aim for better outcomes, instead of this 'culture war' ideology battle you have in the states.



And those countries have lower human development index ratings than the United States. Norway, which is blessed with innumerable natural resources and very few people with whom to share the profits with is the only European nation that is ahead of the United States in HDI. Australia is the only other nation in the entire world that is currently ahead of the United States in HDI, and its in a similar situation as Norway. Clearly its not all "greener pastures" over there. 

All the good intended laws and entitlements in the world don't fix an economy(they can hurt economies). If nothing is growing so to speak there is nothing to share. 



			
				Troj said:
			
		

> There are times when rights clash, absolutely.
> 
> I tend to apply a pragmatic utilitarian approach in those cases, by considering how much involved parties each stand to lose or gain in the conflict over the long term, and how many individuals will be affected (for good or ill) by a given outcome long-term.
> 
> I also consider how different potential outcomes do or don't sync up with our stated society-wide goals and dreams. There are tried-and-true ways of helping people and societies to become happier, healthier, more autonomous, more economically prosperous, more well-educated, safer, and so on and so forth, and history has shown that there are also standard ways things royally go to shit in those areas.



The funny thing that there is a major flaw in utilitarianism. The funny thing about it is that the flaw in utilitarianism is EXACTLY what Fallowfox keeps arguing but for some reason doesn't apply to his own arguments. That flaw is "human beings cannot see every possible outcome." 

That's why a keep it simple formula is best. Supposing the United States really did need healthcare reform the ideal strategy is not to make a titanic burden upon folks in a system so complicated that people are still not quite sure of what is expected of them. A strategy such as declaring insurance companies to be "public utilities" is far more targeted and controllable. It also minimizes the number of people you must involve in the process and control. That also means that its easier to course correct if there is a problem. Getting 300,000,000 people to change is far more difficult every single time than trying to manage the workforce in the insurance companies by themselves. 

There are also problems with feeding the cycle of envy and resentment. Its natural that there be some envy and resentment between working folks and the leadership(whom usually have a great many assets). However, now its a political game. Both sides now race to pappa government for special favors and protection from the other side. Not only does this feed resentment against each other but it ultimately breeds resentment against the government itself. Now in the United States we have one faction that believes that the government is evil and is owned by the "corporations and the rich" and one other faction that believes that the government is evil and owned by "leaches and mooches who make a living off the work of others". To be honest at this point I haven't the slightest clue how to solve this problem but feeding the frenzy certainly will not help. 

The steps Hobby Lobby has taken to get out of even a little obligation demonstrates how pronounced this war has become, and how desperate both sides are becoming.


----------



## Troj (Jul 11, 2014)

I think envy and resentment are ticking time bombs, and in the case of the US, I think the growing gap between the ultra-rich and everyone else has the potential to fuel that envy and resentment. This is the stuff coups are made of---French Revolution, anyone?

As for outcomes, no, you can't always know what will happen, but you can make some solid predictions, based on what you know. Like I said, history has shown that some events or patterns tend to lead to certain outcomes, and that can help to guide our decision-making in some cases.

But, there are cases where you're  attempting something new and different, or there are so many variables that it's hard to make a prediction, or where things have been known to go either way, depending. So, you can't cling too tightly to your predictions.

Your model sounds workable, but I admit I don't have enough of a frame of reference to really imagine it. I can imagine ways it could work, and ways it could fumble, depending on how it was executed. But, I'm open to the idea.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 12, 2014)

Troj said:


> I think envy and resentment are ticking time bombs, and in the case of the US, I think the growing gap between the ultra-rich and everyone else has the potential to fuel that envy and resentment. This is the stuff coups are made of---French Revolution, anyone?
> 
> As for outcomes, no, you can't always know what will happen, but you can make some solid predictions, based on what you know. Like I said, history has shown that some events or patterns tend to lead to certain outcomes, and that can help to guide our decision-making in some cases.
> 
> ...



In such discussions people proposing entitlement programs entirely forget that they have no funds for these entitlements without a working functioning economy. The foundation to human development lay in a working and exuberant economy. As such any time we seek to address the needy that exist in any society we must first ensure we are not damaging the economy. 

This ties into the French Revolution comparison.... Phrasing it as an income inequality problem is not quite accurate. The French government against all sound advice had decided to help my nation earn its independence, eventually they would lead half of Europe to war against Britain. For this the French gained absolutely nothing. They were financially destitute, government and people. This was worsened by bad harvest after bad harvest eventually leading to a bread shortage. Empty bellies are something every ruler should fear. Of course the queen refusing to quite spending what little money there was didn't help the public opinion. There were various factors that just made the crippling financial situation and starvation even worse, it was bound to explode. 

Quite honestly, if the French did not come to my country's aid the decades of starvation, anarchy, civil war, witch hunt trials(inventing "the national razor") and war with the entire rest of the European world would likely not have happened. For that I remember the French every single fourth of July. 

As for my framework there are risks there as well. There is of course potential for corruption in the panels that negotiate regional prices. The price regulation structure also ignores one of the principal costs of medical insurance, that is the high risk of lawsuit. That high risk of lawsuit can be a result of the fact that the plaintiff is not liable for the defendant's legal fees if his suit fails. Of course changing that has its own chain of problems. We also have the aging population problem that is driving up medical use and therefore medical insurance costs. That problem is quite difficult to resolve as well.

However, its easier to target one aspect and adjust than to smash everything with a titanic hammer. Most importantly however it does not rile the people nearly as much. People underestimate how important how a law makes people feel actually is. Sometimes its far more important than the law itself is, at least in my opinion. That's part of my crazy theory that economic success is based more on human sentiment and hope than the laws regulating its structure.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 12, 2014)

ceacar99 said:


> There are also problems with feeding the cycle of envy and resentment. Its natural that there be some envy and resentment between working folks and the leadership(whom usually have a great many assets). However, now its a political game. Both sides now race to pappa government for special favors and protection from the other side. Not only does this feed resentment against each other but it ultimately breeds resentment against the government itself. Now in the United States we have one faction that believes that the government is evil and is owned by the "corporations and the rich" and one other faction that believes that the government is evil and owned by "leaches and mooches who make a living off the work of others". To be honest at this point I haven't the slightest clue how to solve this problem but feeding the frenzy certainly will not help.
> 
> The steps Hobby Lobby has taken to get out of even a little obligation demonstrates how pronounced this war has become, and how desperate both sides are becoming.



I think it's time for an Ayn Rand quote. Yeah yeah I know you all hate her but this one's actually kinda relevant. 

"A 'mixed economy' disintegrates into an institutionalized civil war of pressure groups, each fighting for legislative favors and special privileges at the expense of one another. 
'The existence of such pressure groups and of their political lobbies is openly and cynically acknowledged today. The pretense at any political philosophy, any principles, ideals or long range goals is fast disappearing from our scene - and it is all but admitted that this country is now floating without direction, at the mercy of a blind, short-range power game played by various statist gangs, each intent on getting hold of a legislative gun for any special advantage of the immediate moment." - 1963


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 12, 2014)

ceacar99 said:


> And those countries have lower human development index ratings than the United States. Norway, which is blessed with innumerable natural resources and very few people with whom to share the profits with is the only European nation that is ahead of the United States in HDI. Australia is the only other nation in the entire world that is currently ahead of the United States in HDI, and its in a similar situation as Norway. Clearly its not all "greener pastures" over there.
> 
> All the good intended laws and entitlements in the world don't fix an economy(they can hurt economies). If nothing is growing so to speak there is nothing to share.



Your response to 'this is an extensive list of countries which perform better in health care than the USA' is 'but they don't perform as well in other fields' ?

You are incorrectly implying that their health policy, which happens to produce better health outcomes, is responsible for lower HDI [although the HDI differences are of low significance, all of these countries have very high HDI]. 

This proposed causal connection hasn't been justified, nor did anybody ever claim that having a better health outcome meant _everything else _must also be better.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 12, 2014)

Actually it was more of pointing out that your smug attitude essentially amounting to  "Europe is better and America is backwards" is not factually supported by the human development numbers. The HDI numbers are showing that the United States conservative nature in restricting the economy and providing entitlements has been successful. Overall the United States has scored exceptionally well.

Btw: if we compare the EU as a whole to the United States(a more balanced comparison of policies, social attitudes and resources) it stands at 
EU: 0.8623
US: 0.937

In that comparison the United States blows Europe out of the water.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 13, 2014)

ceacar99 said:


> Actually it was more of pointing out that your smug attitude essentially amounting to  "Europe is better and America is backwards" is not factually supported by the human development numbers. The HDI numbers are showing that the United States conservative nature in restricting the economy and providing entitlements has been successful. Overall the United States has scored exceptionally well.
> 
> Btw: if we compare the EU as a whole to the United States(a more balanced comparison of policies, social attitudes and resources) it stands at
> EU: 0.8623
> ...



I'm not claiming that Europe is better at everything. I'm claiming that most other western nations have better health outcomes than the USA because their health policies are evidenced based. 

Furthermore a diffeence of 0.07 of the HDI isn't significant [it's about the difference between Luxembourg and the Netherlands]. I think you're just going after an 'america is the best' boner, for some convoluted and unfathomable reason, rather than addressing the question of health policy.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 13, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> I think it's time for an Ayn Rand quote. Yeah yeah I know you all hate her but this one's actually kinda relevant.
> 
> "A 'mixed economy' disintegrates into an institutionalized civil war of pressure groups, each fighting for legislative favors and special privileges at the expense of one another.
> 'The existence of such pressure groups and of their political lobbies is openly and cynically acknowledged today. The pretense at any political philosophy, any principles, ideals or long range goals is fast disappearing from our scene - and it is all but admitted that this country is now floating without direction, at the mercy of a blind, short-range power game played by various statist gangs, each intent on getting hold of a legislative gun for any special advantage of the immediate moment." - 1963



 I think my 'don't listen to dead Jews' rule is more helpful.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 13, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I'm not claiming that Europe is better at everything. I'm claiming that most other western nations have better health outcomes than the USA because their health policies are evidenced based.
> 
> Furthermore a diffeence of 0.07 of the HDI isn't significant [it's about the difference between Luxembourg and the Netherlands]. I think you're just going after an 'america is the best' boner, for some convoluted and unfathomable reason, rather than addressing the question of health policy.



In every thread about political policy your position essentially amounts to "America is a backwards ignorant place. If only they behaved exactly like the Europeans I so love then all of their problems would be resolved!" Its just enjoyable to point out that such a position is simply emotional in nature. 

Also the difference between the Netherlands and Luxembourg is the difference between HDI ranked #4 and HDI ranked #26. The difference between the US as a whole and the EU as a whole is 8%. Considering how much effort goes into making any progress on those numbers I'd say that's a pretty significant difference. 



			
				Kit H. Ruppell  said:
			
		

> I think my 'don't listen to dead Jews' rule is more helpful.



What?!


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 13, 2014)

ceacar99 said:


> In every thread about political policy your position essentially amounts to "America is a backwards ignorant place. If only they behaved exactly like the Europeans I so love then all of their problems would be resolved!" Its just enjoyable to point out that such a position is simply emotional in nature.
> 
> Also the difference between the Netherlands and Luxembourg is the difference between HDI ranked #4 and HDI ranked #26. The difference between the US as a whole and the EU as a whole is 8%. Considering how much effort goes into making any progress on those numbers I'd say that's a pretty significant difference.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately the political topics in discussion at the moment, such as health policy or gun regulations, do happen to be comparable with NW european countries. 

If we were discussng conservation and ecological policy many US states exceed NW europe, because europe has the most damaged ecology of any region on the planet. 
If whaling were discussed I would criticise norway denmark and iceland relentlessly. If conscription were brought up I would criticise norway, denmark, austria and switzerland. 

But people aren't interested in discussing these topics, for whatever reason. 

Currently between 10 and 30% of countries are probably classed in the wrong bin, let along their small differences inside bins, in the HDI, so interpretation of HDI must be nuanced.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 13, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I think my 'don't listen to dead Jews' rule is more helpful.



Yeah, because it's totally not like the US is engaged in this war of various pressure groups that keep trying to push their own agendas on the American people. There totally aren't Democrat and Republican lobbyists putting in "Campaign Donations" in exchange for favors and what not. 

No, you'd rather not discuss that it seems like. You'd rather just weave around the actual argument being made and make some would-be smart ass remark.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 14, 2014)

To Ayn Rand, stuffing yourself on a platter full of T-bones in front of this child while making obnoxious yummy sounds at her and then sticking your finger down your throat to purge it all would be, at worst, a morally neutral act.

Basically fuck anything Ayn Rand has to say.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 14, 2014)

Lobar said:


> To Ayn Rand, stuffing yourself on a platter full of T-bones in front of this child while making obnoxious yummy sounds at her and then sticking your finger down your throat to purge it all would be, at worst, a morally neutral act.
> 
> Basically fuck anything Ayn Rand has to say.



How'd you come to that conclusion?

Also nice ad hominem.


----------



## Lobar (Jul 15, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> How'd you come to that conclusion?
> 
> Also nice ad hominem.



It follows from the basic tenets of her "philosophy" and such an act would be on par with the actions of the protagonists in her shitty books that are meant to exemplify said philosophy.

did you actually read any of her books or


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 15, 2014)

Lobar said:


> It follows from the basic tenets of her "philosophy" and such an act would be on par with the actions of the protagonists in her shitty books that are meant to exemplify said philosophy.
> 
> did you actually read any of her books or



Admittedly, the only fiction book of hers I read through was Anthem. 

I have read most or through a bit of her non-fiction books though, like The Virtue of Selfishness, Captialism: The Unknown Ideal, The Voice of Reason, and the Romantic Manifesto. 

So yes, I have read her books. Just not the ones you have (if you've read any at all). 

Addition: also I'd like to say how much of Rand's work I've read or Rand's nature is irrelevant to this topic. I merely cited the quote because Ceacar brought up groups and factions racing to get government favors, kinda like how Rand talked about pressure groups trying to get control of the "Legislative gun" in the quote. I do not want to partake in a debate about Rand, nor will I continue to anylonger for the forseeable future in this thread.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jul 16, 2014)

mcjoel said:


> Oh goodie another thread that's probably going to turn into a word wall debate.
> My opinion on the matter is i have none *as I don't have all the facts*.



Then let me help... out of the twenty available methods of birth control, Hobby Lobby only objected to four of them, leaving sixteen methods of birth control still available.  And acceptable.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jul 16, 2014)

Lobar said:


> To Ayn Rand, stuffing yourself on a platter full of T-bones in front of this child while making obnoxious yummy sounds at her and then sticking your finger down your throat to purge it all would be, at worst, a morally neutral act.
> 
> Basically fuck anything Ayn Rand has to say.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdeI9NfbfT8

I'll say she makes a pretty good argument against racism. Don't discount her initially because its politically convenient to do so. 

on a side note: I hate it when people refuse to read up or learn about their opponents positions or ideas. And nothing erks me more than when I see people make forum posts asking others 'what good arguments are against such 'n suches politics, philosophy or whatever.' I hate those. It's intellectually lazy imo. People should have their own criticisms from their actual disagreement that us rooted in, from at least a somewhat, understanding of the ideology they are criticizing. I have read Ayn Rand and disagree and agree on some things, like non-dogmatic people usually do when they are not slaves to a certain set of ideas. I agree with her on racism but I disagree with her on her narrow view of objective morality, since I'm, I guess, a nihilist and don't believe in objective morals or ethics.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Jul 16, 2014)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> I think my 'don't listen to dead Jews' rule is more helpful.


Pffftttt HAHAHA! 
Omg that actually made me laugh out loud, I nearly rolled on the floor too!


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Jul 16, 2014)

Batty Krueger said:


> Pffftttt HAHAHA!
> Omg that actually made me laugh out loud, I nearly rolled on the floor too!


The only notable exception I can think of is Einstein

 v Ugh,_ FINE _v


----------



## Troj (Jul 16, 2014)

On the contrary, I think more people could stand to listen to Groucho Marx.


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 17, 2014)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdeI9NfbfT8
> 
> I'll say she makes a pretty good argument against racism. Don't discount her initially because its politically convenient to do so.
> 
> on a side note: I hate it when people refuse to read up or learn about their opponents positions or ideas. And nothing erks me more than when I see people make forum posts asking others 'what good arguments are against such 'n suches politics, philosophy or whatever.' I hate those. It's intellectually lazy imo. People should have their own criticisms from their actual disagreement that us rooted in, from at least a somewhat, understanding of the ideology they are criticizing. I have read Ayn Rand and disagree and agree on some things, like non-dogmatic people usually do when they are not slaves to a certain set of ideas. I agree with her on racism but I disagree with her on her narrow view of objective morality, since I'm, I guess, a nihilist and don't believe in objective morals or ethics.



Also from what I gather people often judge Rand's philosophy from her books, which I think is kinda a bad idea. True her works like Anthem and Atlas Shrugged are supposed to display what it's about, but with books like The Virtue of Selfishness, which is a collection of her articles and lectures (well, some of them) it's easier to get a wider view on things, because there she can just explain things and not have to deal with characters, plot, pacing, etc. And even some people who like some or all of her ideas agree that her fiction is terrible. 

And I agree on the opposing viewpoints thing. Far too many people in this day and age are too content to only criticize the other side, and to never admit when their side is wrong or has messed up. And if people don't like or disagree with something, they won't even bother to read or learn about it, even if doing so would help their arguments or at least help them to know what they're arguing against better. 

But eh, what do I know.


----------



## Fallowfox (Jul 17, 2014)

What was the function of quoting ayn rand? Did you construct an argument for or against hobby lobby's actions, or just comment that current politics resembles a description she wrote?


----------



## Nikolinni (Jul 17, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> What was the function of quoting ayn rand? Did you construct an argument for or against hobby lobby's actions, or just comment that current politics resembles a description she wrote?



Just a comment that current politics resembled her description of American politics at one point.

But apparently even THAT is enough to get the Anti-Rands riled up.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jul 17, 2014)

Nikolinni said:


> Also from what I gather people often judge Rand's philosophy from her books, which I think is kinda a bad idea. True her works like Anthem and Atlas Shrugged are supposed to display what it's about, but with books like The Virtue of Selfishness, which is a collection of her articles and lectures (well, some of them) it's easier to get a wider view on things, because there she can just explain things and not have to deal with characters, plot, pacing, etc. And even some people who like some or all of her ideas agree that her fiction is terrible.
> 
> And I agree on the opposing viewpoints thing. Far too many people in this day and age are too content to only criticize the other side, and to never admit when their side is wrong or has messed up. And if people don't like or disagree with something, they won't even bother to read or learn about it, even if doing so would help their arguments or at least help them to know what they're arguing against better.
> 
> But eh, what do I know.



As a libertarian and I see it a lot from "my camp." From minanarchists to AnCaps they push slogans and repeat the criticisms of others as though it is theirs and if they actually understand it. A good example is Keynes. He is the #1 enemy and is constantly criticized by libertarians for being a "fake" economist and that "The General Theory" is bullshit, but I find his book has never been read by them. The only thing these people have read that has anything to do with Keynes is Mises Institute articles that criticize him. Ironically same goes for Mises' "Human Action," the books of all books to read if you are a libertarian, and to a lesser extent Hazlitt's, is pushed by libertarians to be read, but is mostly never read by the advocates. Their job I guess is to just toe the line :\


----------



## ceacar99 (Jul 18, 2014)

Lobar said:


> To Ayn Rand, stuffing yourself on a platter full of T-bones in front of this child while making obnoxious yummy sounds at her and then sticking your finger down your throat to purge it all would be, at worst, a morally neutral act.
> 
> Basically fuck anything Ayn Rand has to say.



Well, I would argue you haven't really understood her Philosophy (which can make sense, she is excessively verbose) but instead I'm going to approach this from another angle. 

At what point is eating my steak dinner moral? Is it moral if I eat my steak dinner if the child has his back turned? Is it moral if I eat my steak dinner 100 miles away while he starves to death? 1,000 miles? Your statement above can be summed up as saying "Its immoral to eat well while a child starves." You also added to that with "Its even worse if the child is aware of your eating." You are in essence denouncing everyone who currently is enjoying a full belly in the world while a child starves. Without thinking about it you are demanding that others set down the path to the western concept of becoming a "moral saint". 

Suppose instead of eating a steak dinner I lived on a barely adequate diet of gruel and spent the extra money to feed starving children? Would that make me "moral" or "honorable"? We have already established that you feel doing the opposite is immoral, even more so if I eat in front of said child. So you are essentially demanding that I sacrifice for this child. Why should it stop with the food? Wouldn't it be as equally wrong for me to prance around in front of the child in a nice suit while he has nothing to cover his flesh? Your statement of what is moral says that would be wrong and that for me to be "moral" I should give some of my clothing to the child. 

Where does this all end? At what point are my sacrifices to the needy enough? When can I be content that I have in fact become "moral" and achieved the proper level of sacrifice for the needy? This is all leading to the path of you praising a "moral saint" as the highest form of human life, when in fact such a being would not be so. When a man gives up everything for others he has nothing left for art or culture. He raises no crops or builds no industry. Ultimately he would make the world even more sad in his presence. 
(read Susan Wolf, she argues AGAINST the concept that moral saints are what we should aspire to)
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/susanwolfessay1982.pdf

Just so you know, Ayan Rand was merely trying to glorify work and denounce the concept of moral sainthood as the ultimate ideal. She doesn't advocate torture or any of that. She merely wishes people would understand that a world of moral saints ultimately is a sad, dreary and dying world.


----------

