China cracks down on house churches

[Ben Kenobi]

But you didn't do that in that thread. You just expressed disagreement with the verdict. If you're changing your opinion now, that's fine--but when the verdict was first made, this clearly wasn't your view, as the thread shows.

I still disagree with the methods even as I agree with the motivations. The courts shouldn't be deciding this.

Unjust...in your opinion? So why does your opinion of what is or isn't just get to trump the law, eh? Certain mayors felt bans on gay marriage were unjust and started performing ceremonies, anway...

First off Dr. King suffered the penalties of the law, even as he tried to change them. So my opinion of an unjust law does not trump the enforcement of the law. Suffer under the law, while trying to change the law is the only way to go.

I don't see any of these mayors stripped of their posts, despite violating their own authority, so I don't see how they have any respect for the law, whether just or unjust.

The issue is clouded here. You said that a woman should be required to have her husband consent before a doctor can prescribe birth control. So what would happen to a woman who didn't? What about a doctor who prescribed it without his consent?

That's a good question. First of all, I think that if the husband were not consulted that he would have grounds for divorce. I don't see any value in legal penalties to either the pharmacist or the wife, but rather, in emphasizing the need to have both involved in a decision that is going to have profound impact on both people.

The point is that you advocated a legal control over the woman's reproductive decision. Saying a husband should have a say in it is one thing, but saying their should be laws dictating that is quite another.

First of all, I did not say the laws should get involved. I said the woman should inform her husband of the decision. Secondly, this is not a 'woman's reproductive decision', there cannot be a separation between the reproductive decisions of a husband and wife, since that is the marital bond between both. A husband should also obtain the consent of his wife before a vasectomy for the same reason.

You also asked, "Why should a husband be able to get a vasectomy without the consent of his wife?" The clear implication of this is that he should be legally prohibited from doing so. You yet again are changing your story.

Excuse me. The question asks what the question asks. The question is why. Why should the husband be able to get a vasectomy without the consent of his wife? I do not imply that legal sanctions ought to prohibit him from doing so, rather I am trying to get to the meat and potatoes, the motivation of men and women who choose to cut their spouses out of the loop.

This is all I asked for all along. And this is in contradiction to your posts in the thread I cited. I'm glad you realize this, but I wonder why you were so hesitant to say so, and why you're insisting--falsely--that you said this in the other thread.

No, it is entirely consistant with my previous position.

Actually, since I've been to at about 7 gay pride parades in various locales, it's a matter of statistical sampling. You've been to one in one city (at which, you say, you didn't even see a sex act). I've been to several in several cities. And I haven't witnessed any. The worst thing I witnessed was a homeless woman who walked down 5th avenue in NY topless and would unzip her jeans and flash the crowd. She wasn't a part of the parade, and was escorted off the street by police.

That doesn't mean incidents don't occur, but it sure does indicate they're pretty damned rare.

Given the number of parades, seven is as much of a drop in the bucket as one.

quote:

You chose to engage the comparision.

Who says it does? Strawman.

You did, and now my sig says you did too.

[b]You seem caught up on this notion that a maverick engaging in an unsavory act somehow despoils an entire event, despite it's not being condoned. Yet when I turned this very argument around on you in the other thread, you squeal like stuck pig. What's with you and the double standards?

It is because you insist on tarring all the prolifers with the same brush that I find your arguments here so humorous. If you are willing to withdraw your previous comment, and accept that one nut who shoots an abortion doctor is no more representative of the prolife movement, than one flasher is of the entire gay rights movement, then I will drop the point.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I still disagree with the methods even as I agree with the motivations. The courts shouldn't be deciding this.

No, it is entirely consistant with my previous position.

So this is you DISAGREEING WITH THE SCOTUS RULING. Jeebus, that's what I said to start with--that you disagreed with the ruling. And now, after braying over and over that wasn't the case, you affirm it!

In any case, MtG thrashed you rather soundly in the other thread over your peculiar notions about the jurisdiction of SCOTUS in overturning laws.

First off Dr. King suffered the penalties of the law, even as he tried to change them. So my opinion of an unjust law does not trump the enforcement of the law. Suffer under the law, while trying to change the law is the only way to go.

I asked, "religious meetings in China are against the law. Since that's the law, don't you think it ought to be enforced?"

You responded: "Of course not."

More twisting in the wind!

I don't see any of these mayors stripped of their posts, despite violating their own authority, so I don't see how they have any respect for the law, whether just or unjust.

That's up to the voters. Nothing the mayors did was "illegal" in the sense of incurring immediate legal penalties. They acted, the courts shut them down. That's the process. Nothing proscribes these men of being stripped of their posts by other means than the voters.

That's a good question. First of all, I think that if the husband were not consulted that he would have grounds for divorce. I don't see any value in legal penalties to either the pharmacist or the wife, but rather, in emphasizing the need to have both involved in a decision that is going to have profound impact on both people.

First of all, I did not say the laws should get involved. I said the woman should inform her husband of the decision. Secondly, this is not a 'woman's reproductive decision', there cannot be a separation between the reproductive decisions of a husband and wife, since that is the marital bond between both. A husband should also obtain the consent of his wife before a vasectomy for the same reason.

You're changing your story again. Here's what you said:

MTG: It was "democratic" practice to forbid doctors from prescribing birth control to unmarried women at all, and to married women without the husband's permission.

BK: I actually agree with both. Women and men in a marriage should abide to birth control by mutual consent. As for the latter, shouldn't actions have consequences? No one forces the woman to have sex.

You agreed with the legal prohibitions against women getting birth control sans consent, and even against unmarried woman getting them!

You then went on to say:

BK: A doctor should have to get the consent of both the husband and the wife before issuing birth control, in order to protect one party from exploitation.

Who is dictating this "Should have"? Considering the only cases of doctors needing consent from another party for medical procedures are ones mandated by law, I have to wonder what on earth you're going on about?

Excuse me. The question asks what the question asks. The question is why. Why should the husband be able to get a vasectomy without the consent of his wife? I do not imply that legal sanctions ought to prohibit him from doing so, rather I am trying to get to the meat and potatoes, the motivation of men and women who choose to cut their spouses out of the loop.

There you go again:

BK: Why should a husband be able to get a vasectomy without the consent of his wife?

BG: Why? How about because the guy has a right to do what he wants with his body? If his wife doesn't like it, she can divorce his ass.

BK: Actually, a husband and wife are supposed to share each others' body. Anything he chooses to do to his body affects his wife, especially in the case of a vasectomy. If the wife wants to have kids, and the husband goes and has a vasectomy, that is not fair to the wife, particularly if she has pledged herself to him, and he does not tell her about the vasectomy. This is why these things need to be agreed upon through mutual consent.

*****

Now, how would a husband be prevented (i.e. not "be able) from obtaining a vasectomy sans agreement from his wife without a legal prohibition? Especially since I said the wife has the remedy of divorce, your claim that you only meant that they should be able to divorce as if that were in contradiction to my view is baffling. It makes no sense whatsoever for you to assert you weren't talking legal prohibitions, especially given your response to MtG.

No, it is entirely consistant with my previous position.

I just had to quote this because I've established that this isn't true.

Given the number of parades, seven is as much of a drop in the bucket as one.

As I said, statistical sampling. To date, it's more than anything you've provided in way of evidence that open sex acts are condoned at parades.

You did, and now my sig says you did too.

What your sig says is dishonest quote mining. The actual quote:

But it's pretty obvious to any thinking person that someone who goes out and murders an abortion doctor or bombs an abortion clinic is "prolife" in the sense of being against abortion.

You omitted both the quotation marks and the qualifying phrase following. I wonder why? Could it be so you could misrepresent what I said? Looks like it!

It is because you insist on tarring all the prolifers with the same brush that I find your arguments here so humorous. If you are willing to withdraw your previous comment, and accept that one nut who shoots an abortion doctor is no more representative of the prolife movement, than one flasher is of the entire gay rights movement, then I will drop the point.

So on top of the above example of egregious dishonesty, you're now taking that thread's argument totally out of context. Typical.

The context of that entire debate--as I pointed out in my last post there--was me saying hypothetically such people are representative of the movement based on YOUR logic. You claimed pie-throwers represented liberals. I used the abortion shooters to point out why that's dumb logic. I did not say I actually believed it, and in fact, anyone reading the whole argument will find it obvious that's not the case, since I said in my first mention of it:

Regardless, your claim (or rather, original claim) that liberals can't respond to Coulter except through pie-throwing has been demonstrated to be false, as the links I provided prove. You seem to be basing your view of responses to Coulter on one pie-throwing stunt rather than taking into account the full gamut of responses to her claims. Were I to employ the same tactic on an issue you hold dear, I could claim that the only response conservatives have in the abortion debate is to murder doctors. Doesn't make much sense, now does it?

Now, you just ignored all those pesky little phrases and falsely claimed I was saying something I wasn't. You have a habit of doing this, even with your own words.

The fact that you're squealing bloody murder about the example proves my point amply. Thank you again.

[Ben Kenobi]

So this is you DISAGREEING WITH THE SCOTUS RULING. Jeebus, that's what I said to start with--that you disagreed with the ruling. And now, after braying over and over that wasn't the case, you affirm it!

No, you claimed that I disagreed with the ruling because I don't like gay people, and because I believe that minorities ought to be oppressed. And when that didn't prove the case, what credit do I get? Nothing.

I disagree with the methods, even as I agree with the motivations in lifting the sodomy restrictions.

In any case, MtG thrashed you rather soundly in the other thread over your peculiar notions about the jurisdiction of SCOTUS in overturning laws.

MtG or Scalia, as an authority on the jurisdiction of the court? That's an easy answer for me, as it is for you. I would be shocked if I ever found you agreeing with Scalia.

I asked, "religious meetings in China are against the law. Since that's the law, don't you think it ought to be enforced?"

You responded: "Of course not."

Yes, and that is my opinion. You go on to state, putting words in my mouth, that I believe my opinion trumps the law. If I were in China, since both public and private religious practice were banned, I would willingly cooperate with the authorities as they arrested me, even as I ensured that their only rationale for arresting me would be for private religious practice.

That's up to the voters. Nothing the mayors did was "illegal" in the sense of incurring immediate legal penalties. They acted, the courts shut them down. That's the process. Nothing proscribes these men of being stripped of their posts by other means than the voters.

A mayor acting beyond his jurisdiction, and beyond his authority is grounds for being stripped of his position as mayor of the city. I haven't seen any mayors penalised for their violation, so I must conclude that there are to be no consequences for their actions.

Suppose a mayor decided, on his own authority inside a small city that the city no longer had to pay taxes to the state, but rather, all taxes collected in the city would go to the city government? How long do you think the mayor would retain his position?

You're changing your story again. Here's what you said:

MTG: It was "democratic" practice to forbid doctors from prescribing birth control to unmarried women at all, and to married women without the husband's permission.

BK: I actually agree with both. Women and men in a marriage should abide to birth control by mutual consent. As for the latter, shouldn't actions have consequences? No one forces the woman to have sex.

While I could have been clearer, I believe actions should have consequence, but I do not spell out that the consequences ought to be legal prohibitions, nor do I believe that the law should deprive a physician of his license in this instance.

BK: A doctor should have to get the consent of both the husband and the wife before issuing birth control, in order to protect one party from exploitation.

Who is dictating this "Should have"? Considering the only cases of doctors needing consent from another party for medical procedures are ones mandated by law, I have to wonder what on earth you're going on about?

Thank you. I say should. But I don't ever spell out the legal ramifications for those physicians who violate this, which is what I have stated here in this thread, that there should be no legal consequences, even as the physician should not prescribe birth control without the consent of the spouse. It's a moral duty that is not actionable, in other words. Not everything that is moral, ought to be enforced by the courts.

It makes no sense whatsoever for you to assert you weren't talking legal prohibitions, especially given your response to MtG.

You are reading something into there that I did not say. Where did I spell out the legal penalties to the doctors for prescribing birth control? I did not, because then as now, I didn't think there should be legal consequences, even as I believe the physician has a duty not to do so.

As I said, statistical sampling. To date, it's more than anything you've provided in way of evidence that open sex acts are condoned at parades.

You admitted as such that they do occur, and that to me is evidence enough. You attempted to brush it off saying that they are exceedingly rare, and that to me also provides significant evidence, that not only do they occur, you are willing to condone their occurance, should they be 'rare'. That's the same as Bill Clinton saying abortions should be safe, legal and rare.

What your sig says is dishonest quote mining.

The quote means no difference to me. You see, in the eyes of most folks, you are quibbling by making a distinction where none exist, between the prolifers and their anti-abortion cousins. Most times, folks who are not prolife call the two by their same name, just so that they can apply the argument, that because some nuts shoot doctors that they are representative of the prolife movement as a whole.

I asked you point blank in the thread, why you applied quote marks. Secondly, if you look at the statement, why would you start it out by saying 'every thinking person'? I smell a BAM!

If you are willing to back off your statement and to admit that prolifers are peaceful individuals, who do not condone violence against abortion providers, then I will pull the quote from my sig.

The context of that entire debate--as I pointed out in my last post there--was me saying hypothetically such people are representative of the movement based on YOUR logic. You claimed pie-throwers represented liberals. I used the abortion shooters to point out why that's dumb logic. I did not say I actually believed it, and in fact, anyone reading the whole argument will find it obvious that's not the case, since I said in my first mention of it:

And I said, great. That's right, but the difference between the two is that prolifers have spoken out against the shooting of abortion doctors, while liberals have said nothing about the pie throwing. This is why your argument didn't work then, and still doesn't now.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


... that prolifers have spoken out against the shooting of abortion doctors, while liberals have said nothing about the pie throwing. This is why your argument didn't work then, and still doesn't now.

Which 'liberals' haven't spoken out against pie-throwing ?


And which 'pro-lifers' have condemned murdering doctors who perform abortions ?

Clearly not the 'pro-lifers' who killed said doctors. Thus, not all 'pro-lifers' condemn the murder of doctors who perform terminations.




Isn't making huge unspecified unsupported claims easy ?

[Ben Kenobi]

And which 'pro-lifers' have condemned murdering doctors who perform abortions ?

Clearly not the 'pro-lifers' who killed said doctors. Thus, not all 'pro-lifers' condemn the murder of doctors who perform terminations.

Question begging. You are assuming what we are trying to prove.

As for the first part of the statement, I can confirm that Vancouver Right to Life, and Campaign Life Coalition, and CBR in the states have all made explicit statements against Joseph Kopp, condemning him for shooting an abortion doctor. CBR even has a sign saying they condemn violence against unborn children and abortion providers.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Question begging. You are assuming what we are trying to prove.

As for the first part of the statement, I can confirm that Vancouver Right to Life, and Campaign Life Coalition, and CBR in the states have all made explicit statements against Joseph Kopp, condemning him for shooting an abortion doctor. CBR even has a sign saying they condemn violence against unborn children and abortion providers.

No, you are assuming that 'liberals' do not condemn pie-throwing.


Based on what ? That you haven't read about it in a Neocon opinion piece ?

That you haven't seen whichever 'liberal' is your current bete noir(e) campaigning against pie-throwing on television ?

So three (wow! 3!!!) 'pro-life' anti-choice groups have condemned the actions of one murderer. Hoop-de-doo, Josephine, break out the cheap beers !

All that proves is that some 'pro-lifers' publicly don't support the murder committed by another 'pro-lifer' .

It doesn't prove that all 'pro-lifers' are against murder.

You still have yet to provide any evidence that 'liberals' as a group condone pie-throwing. Some individuals may, some may not.


Clearly, you're the one doing the assuming, with that brand of sloppy logic.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, you claimed that I disagreed with the ruling because I don't like gay people, and because I believe that minorities ought to be oppressed. And when that didn't prove the case, what credit do I get? Nothing.

Okay, now I can safely call you a complete liar. I said no such thing.

The only thing I said was that you disagreed with the ruling, which indicated you approved of the state interfering in the bedroom, so long as a legislature approves of it. You really have an honesty problem, don't you?

MtG or Scalia, as an authority on the jurisdiction of the court? That's an easy answer for me, as it is for you. I would be shocked if I ever found you agreeing with Scalia.

Yet you were unable to answer MtG and explain why it is the SCOTUS didn't have any jurisdiction in this case. So why's that?

Furthermore, your motives vs. method argument doesn't make sense in light of your comments on enforceable laws. If a law isn't enforceable, you say, it should be stricken. Why is it only up to the legislature to do this? If the law is unjust and unenforceable, why is SCOTUS striking it down a bad thing?

Yes, and that is my opinion. You go on to state, putting words in my mouth, that I believe my opinion trumps the law. If I were in China, since both public and private religious practice were banned, I would willingly cooperate with the authorities as they arrested me, even as I ensured that their only rationale for arresting me would be for private religious practice.

I just want people to see the exact quotes so they can see the magnitude of your weaseling here:

On sodomy:

BK: I said that if something is a law it ought to be enforced.

On religious restriction:

BG: Since that's the law, don't you think it ought to be enforced?

BK: Of course not.

A mayor acting beyond his jurisdiction, and beyond his authority is grounds for being stripped of his position as mayor of the city.

Really? What law is this, in which states? Please cite. I'd love to see where you get this. Statute numbers would help, too.

You're talking out of your ass. Again.

I haven't seen any mayors penalised for their violation, so I must conclude that there are to be no consequences for their actions.

If there are consequences, the voters will deal them out, as it should be.

Suppose a mayor decided, on his own authority inside a small city that the city no longer had to pay taxes to the state, but rather, all taxes collected in the city would go to the city government? How long do you think the mayor would retain his position?

Syphoning tax dollars is a very different issue than officiating a few marriages. Come on, you can do better than this.

And provided a court shut down the mayor's attempt to do so (which would happen quickly), I bet he'd not lose his job at all, unless the voters decided to recall him. You really don't know how our political system works, do you?

While I could have been clearer, I believe actions should have consequence, but I do not spell out that the consequences ought to be legal prohibitions, nor do I believe that the law should deprive a physician of his license in this instance.

Thank you. I say should. But I don't ever spell out the legal ramifications for those physicians who violate this, which is what I have stated here in this thread, that there should be no legal consequences, even as the physician should not prescribe birth control without the consent of the spouse. It's a moral duty that is not actionable, in other words. Not everything that is moral, ought to be enforced by the courts.

You are reading something into there that I did not say. Where did I spell out the legal penalties to the doctors for prescribing birth control? I did not, because then as now, I didn't think there should be legal consequences, even as I believe the physician has a duty not to do so.

I'm not buying this one bit, Ben. Considering the issue in debate in that thread was 100% legal issues, these attempts to explain away your comments about you not meaning them to be legal issues just doesn't hold water.

MtG pointed out how giving birth control to unmarried women and to women w/o their husbands consent was illegal, and you said you agreed with those prohibitions, as I quoted. Then, in response:

MtG: And that is a private matter for them to decide, not for the state to impose it's views.

BK: No. Suppose a man has a vasectomy done without his wife's permission? I would consider that to be grounds for divorce. A doctor should have to get the consent of both the husband and the wife before issuing birth control, in order to protect one party from exploitation.

In your very next paragraph you then make a case for why the state had the right to get involved in the patient-doctor relationship.

That entire conversation deals with you expressing what you do and don't think is okay for the state to impose its will on, and you're clearly in favor of it doing so for birth control (and vasectomies!). If you weren't advocating legal penalties for these things in some form or another, then you wouldn't have been discussing them in a thread about what the state has a right to legally prohibit.

So your tortuous explanations above fall completely flat.

Again, I'll happily accept that you've changed your view on this since that thread, but revising history to make it look like you weren't arguing law is untenable, based on both statements and context.

You admitted as such that they do occur, and that to me is evidence enough. You attempted to brush it off saying that they are exceedingly rare, and that to me also provides significant evidence, that not only do they occur, you are willing to condone their occurance, should they be 'rare'.

How could I be condoning their occurance when I state that offenders should be prosecuted? I even provided evidence they were being prosecuted, refuting your erroneous claim to the contrary. How is that condoning? You are again being fundamentally dishonest in describing what I've said. You lie about what you say, and now you lie about what I say. Wearing thin, old bean.

That's the same as Bill Clinton saying abortions should be safe, legal and rare.

Mind-boggling. How could this possibly be the same, when I explicitley state sex acts in public should be prosecuted, as they are illegal? This is the single worst analogy I think I've seen you use.

Sadly, it's also another dishonest mischaracterization of what I said.

The quote means no difference to me. You see, in the eyes of most folks, you are quibbling by making a distinction where none exist, between the prolifers and their anti-abortion cousins.

Huh! So you admit that most people see "prolife" and "anti-abortion" as the same thing? Funny how you complained about that assumption before!

Most times, folks who are not prolife call the two by their same name, just so that they can apply the argument, that because some nuts shoot doctors that they are representative of the prolife movement as a whole.

No, Ben--people call them prolife because those people identify themselves as prolife and the majority of the prolife movement is made up of people who really just fit your anti-abortion naming, but still think of themselves as prolife. You state this just so above. Again, the No True Scotsman fallacy applies.

I asked you point blank in the thread, why you applied quote marks. Secondly, if you look at the statement, why would you start it out by saying 'every thinking person'? I smell a BAM!

I applied the quote marks to show that most people see "prolife" as interchangeable with "anti-abortion," and that's how I was using the term--which I clearly explained. Your quibbling over it over wounded pride is amusing, but it doesn't change the point.

And why wouldn't "every thinking person" assume that someone who kills abortion doctors is anti-abortion, Ben? How on earth is that a BAM?

If you are willing to back off your statement and to admit that prolifers are peaceful individuals, who do not condone violence against abortion providers, then I will pull the quote from my sig.

I don't care if you keep in your sig, doesn't hurt me a bit. I'll happily explain to anyone who cares and asks (I wager that will be very few) how it's an example of you taking what I said horribly out of context, thus showing you're a liar. By all means, keep it. After all, since I never actually said that I believed prolifers condoned violence, I have nothing to retract.

And I said, great. That's right, but the difference between the two is that prolifers have spoken out against the shooting of abortion doctors, while liberals have said nothing about the pie throwing. This is why your argument didn't work then, and still doesn't now.

And thanks to MB to pointing out the nonsense of this.

Since you're so keen on retractions, when can I get a retraction from you on your dumb assertion here that all liberals condone pie-throwing? I'll also take a retraction on the first comment in your post which falsely attributed statements to me I categorically did not make.

I'm beginning to see you as a very dishonest person, Ben. I'm also not inclined to continue discussions with you, since it invariably leads to such dishonesty.