Fvck SCOTUS

[N35t0r]

[insert Robotech OST here]

[The Mad Monk]

Every day, in every way, we are approaching a Ghost In The Shell world.

[Sava]

...says the recluse drug user.

fixed

[The Mad Monk]

You were the one describing your business model in the other thread, but, whatever.

[Fake Boris]

Indeed? No matter how much good you think it does (and I think it's good to not have people starving on the streets), it is clear that it removes a portion of responsibility, in that people are shielded from the full impact of bad choices.

Poverty isn't necessarily the consequence of bad choices, is it?

Besides, anyone, including bankrupt shareholders, can benefit from welfare. Limitation to corporate responsibility is simply a class privilege.

[Fake Boris]

Why is it "completely ludicrous" if a family that owns a business doesn't want to do things that violate their religious beliefs? Do you just hate religious people or people who own businesses? Or maybe you hate both?

It's ludicrous because labor legislation is solely a political issue. When religion meddles with politic, it shouldn't enjoy any special treatment.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

It's ludicrous because labor legislation is solely a political issue. When religion meddles with politic, it shouldn't enjoy any special treatment.

1. How the fck is anything "solely a political issue"? I don't even understand what that's supposed to mean.
2. Should people be expected to violate their religious beliefs in all circumstances? During conscription should military service be forced upon conscientious objectors? Would it be "completely ludicrous" to not attempt to force pacifists to fight?

[Fake Boris]

1. How the fck is anything "solely a political issue"? I don't even understand what that's supposed to mean.

It means that any religious "belief" regarding the conduct of material affairs should not be awarded special consideration. In this case contraception is clearly an issue of worker's rights and health.

2. Should people be expected to violate their religious beliefs in all circumstances? During conscription should military service be forced upon conscientious objectors? Would it be "completely ludicrous" to not attempt to force pacifists to fight?

You're just trying to set me a trap with a false objection.

Whatever your opinion on pacifism is, your opinion should not receive a specific consideration due to its "religious" nature.

[The Mad Monk]

Poverty isn't necessarily the consequence of bad choices, is it?

Not necessarily, no, but often enough, and it can aggravate matters.

Besides, anyone, including bankrupt shareholders, can benefit from welfare. Limitation to corporate responsibility is simply a class privilege.

How is it a class privilege when anyone can incorporate? Unless you mean that anyone who does incorporate becomes a member of that class, in which case it's meaningless.

[Fake Boris]

Not necessarily, no, but often enough, and it can aggravate matters.

The "quality of choices" is an extremely poor predictor of economic cycles. If it were true - then boom and bust cycles would be explained by wild and sudden variations in people's minds.

How is it a class privilege when anyone can incorporate? Unless you mean that anyone who does incorporate becomes a member of that class, in which case it's meaningless.

The title without the bacon is worthless.

[DinoDoc]

In this case contraception is clearly an issue of worker's rights and health.

How is demanding your boss pay for abortifacients an issue of worker's rights?

[AAAAAAAAH!]

It means that any religious "belief" regarding the conduct of material affairs should not be awarded special consideration. In this case contraception is clearly an issue of worker's rights and health.



You're just trying to set me a trap with a false objection.

Whatever your opinion on pacifism is, your opinion should not receive a specific consideration due to its "religious" nature.

What affairs aren't "material affairs"? I don't think there's any issue where you would respect someone's religion. Anyway, I'm still not seeing how it's "completely ludicrous" to think it's a good idea to avoid trying to force people to violate their religious beliefs.

[The Mad Monk]

The "quality of choices" is an extremely poor predictor of economic cycles. If it were true - then boom and bust cycles would be explained by wild and sudden variations in people's minds.

Oddly enough, a recent article in Scientific American suggested that, in the context of how people respond to Ponzi schemes.

The title without the bacon is worthless.

That sentence is worthless.

[Felch]

The title without the bacon is worthless.

Anything without bacon is worthless.

[N35t0r]

Anyway, I'm still not seeing how it's "completely ludicrous" to think it's a good idea to avoid trying to force people to violate their religious beliefs.

I'd tend to agree with this, but I think that the main issue is where do you draw the line.