How accurate is this email?

First of all, how fast do you type? Man, that was a quick response... Actually, there are plenty of laws that require you to report a crime. These laws are called the good samaritan laws. I am not aware of any law that actually requires you to intervene, risking yourself or not. For the record, I agree with this quote completely, which is why I often go out of my way to intervene and help people.But I can't help but notice a similarity between this and voting. Allow me to reword that quote just a little bit. All that is necessary for a democracy to fail is for people not to vote. My polical science professor told me a kazillion times that he believed if our democracy ever fails it will fail from within by people not participating in it. However, I'd hate to see legislations that actually force people to go vote. Inaction is often neither right nor wrong. I have no doubt. But be honest, how likely are you going to be able to convince NJ that fetuses and infants aren't people?My approach, on the other hand, accepts all their presuppositions. I'm trying to make the case that even if fetuses are people, and even if a zygote is to be considered a person, a woman still has every right to choose to eject it from her body.

What are you talking about?Could you please give some examples or even just elaborate a little on this position?

Sorry to butt in... But not doctors?

Actually, I knew someone was going to bring this up. If it's a racist lifeguard working for a racist organization, then no there shouldn't be any penalty for not saving a black person as long as they make it known to people that they don't save black people at their beach.If you had read my other argument about doctors, you would have known that I don't just support blindly a racist doctor's right to refuse treatment. My whole argument in the other thread was about public versus private institutions.

My intention was not to try to drag this thread off topic, but I just have one question (which I probably should have asked in the other thread, but oh well). You brought up lifeguards, presumably, as an example of someone who specifically took upon an occupation which would require him/her to save people and has received the requisite training in order to make that happen.The question I had from the other thread is, why shouldn't we be allowed to penalize someone who has taken on a specific occupation that entails specific responsibilities, when they fail to meet those responsibilities?I would think that if racist doctors wanted to form their own licensing body (which is probably illegal) then they may be able to get away with what you propose should be the case, but they are still licensed and allowed to practice by a governing body that requires them to save anyone's life no matter what hospital they work for or if they have their own private practice. To allow racist doctors to form their own licensing body you would have to decentralize the entire medical establishment and anyone could form their own version of the AMA or what have you and you could have practically anyone allowed to practice medicine regardless of qualifications as long as their parent licensing body deemed them "able." Much like fire brigades in US urban areas in the late 18th/early 19th centuries were uncentralized and homes/buildings often had to display a symbol of allegiance of some sort in order for a certain brigade to put out the fire no matter if they were the first on scene or not.The bottom line is, if you sign up for specific lines of work, you also sign up for the obligations inherent in the job. If you have some quality about yourself that would inhibit you from performing the job (you are too small/tall, your religion prohibits you from touching a non-related woman, you have severe asthma, you have unsteady hands, you are a racist and will select who you will save/treat based on race, etc) then you are disqualified from said job.I'm not sure if the other thread is still open, but as this does not specifically pertain to this thread, I will move this discussion if it needs to go further.

I'm not NJ but I think I understand the argument he is making.NJ is saying that some people object to the assumption that men and women have to conform to certain gender roles such as women being mothers and housewives and being the caregiver in a family and men being the discipliner and breadwinner. This is the 'look down on in straights' element.The other element is the argument that there is no reason why a gay couple can't be suitable parents for a child because they are just as capable of giving the same balance of characteristics, which are traditionally thought to be specific to one gender, as a straight couple.As I understand it NJ seems to think that liberals think it is an abomination to have a family where dad goes out to work and mum stays home and looks after the kids but a holy miracle if dad¹ goes out to work and dad² stays home and looks after the kids.As I say, that is just how I understood the argument, I'm sure NJ will clarify his actual position.TTFN,WK

I can't type. I run about 30-40 wpm with the two-finger peck method. Hasn't this been tried in various countries? Didn't Australia make it a misdemeanor or something not to vote on Election day? I'd settle for convincing him that pregnant women are people; people who don't deserve to undergo forced pregnancy. I know. I think most of those presuppositions are indefensible.

Just a gentle reminder for people to keep in mind the actual topic at hand. Some interesting ideas for new threads going around here. Nem has started one, but it might be worth others considering if their current side topic might be worth bringing a thread of its very own.

---

Indeed. Just the other day, there was a black woman on the Colbert Report talking about how Barack Obama isn't really a black man because he hasn't had the history and culture of the people we typically think of when we say 'African-American'. I was initially surprised to hear her say this, but as she explained it, it made more sense.

My college roommate was the same way. I never figured out how he was able to write his papers so fast with his 2 finger peck method. Yes, actually. Other countries, like some northern european countries, give you rewards for voting, tax deductions and stuff. It's what my political science professor referred to as the "vote card in, fruitloops out" method. It's rewarding for people who vote. Perhaps we could proceed in this way by rewarding people for saving someone else? Good enough for me. And that's the point. I've found that it's a lot easier to convince people of your position if you assume their presuppostions first and show them that even then they're still wrong about their conclusion. Take the bible for example. I could just easily say that I believe all the stories in there are myths and I needn't worry about them. But that simply won't fly when trying to convince a fundy that his great flood story just doesn't make any sense. It's much more effective to point out the absurdities within the story itself, and sometimes their excuses like the floating matts of vegetation when the bible clearly said that everything that was not in the ark died.Trying to convince them of your presuppositions often lead to "he says, she says" situation, which leads to nowhere productive.

And I only said it a few dozen times that we can and should penalize them. How? By not hiring them or by giving them an ultimatum of "either conform with the standards or go find a racist private institution to work in because you ain't ever going to work in a public or any private institution that knows you're a racist." What if we allow them to practice medicine but also have a law that requires them to put a big sign on their foreheads that say "no blacks allowed" or "no latinos allowed"? Like I said, there are other ways to make it safe for the rest of us and respect their rights to their beliefs without brute force. I have no objection to them forming their own version of the AMA. But again, we could make it a law for them to wear a big fat sign on their foreheads (or somewhere bleedingly obvious) that they're not really doctors by our public standards. But this is a little bit of a slippery slope, don't you think? Now, you're just pointing out nonsensical examples. Our fire departments are mostly publically owned. I think that if we start getting privately owned fire brigades that only put out fires in certain areas or homes, I think it's safe to assume they'll be put out of bussiness by the rest of us pretty soon. Just like racist doctors and whatnot. Once we know they won't treat some of us, we'll just ignore them and let them rot in their own racist circle. In such a case, neither their rights nor mine will be violated. Yes, I agree, but only in public institutions. Look, we allow private owners to do things we don't allow in public institutions all the time. In a lot of places, privately owned companies still have the right not to hire you if they know you're gay. I simply don't see why we make it an exception for some professions. Disqualified from the job, yes, and I've been saying this same thing all this time. If we find out they won't treat some of us, we'll put pressure on the hospital or whatnot and get them fired, that is assuming the hospital hasn't already fired them outright. They can then go to some redneck town and open an office with a big fat sign that says "will only treat white people" (by law of course) and see how long the office will stay open.Look, I'm not saying what you think I am saying. I'm simply saying we should still allow them to work and keep their beliefs. What we can do is regulate how it will work. We could, for example, force them to put up disclaimer signs. We could forbid them to work in any public hospital. We could even put pressure on the private hospitals. We could do a lot of things to make the rest of us safe AND allow them to keep their beliefs without brute force. If they want to be a doctor who only treats white people, fine. The rest of us will just put them out of bussiness through boycott and whatnot. (Perhaps intimidation? Haha, just kidding.)

Actually the issue of whether or not a company is privately owned has nothing to do with whether or not it can discriminate.A private, tax exempt CLUB has more leeway...from Title VII

quote:

---

a bona fide private membership club (other than a labor organization)
which is exempt from taxation under section 501(c) of title 26 [the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954]

---

Federal Law -

quote:

---

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

---

I'm mostly dodging this political debate as likely not to be fun, but I'm very curious about a couple things you said, Dan. I have not read the whole 87 post thread yet, so if this has been covered, sorry. Based on only what a couple liberals said to me (so maybe my sources were the exception), I thought it was a typical liberal position that the 2nd amendment referred to militia only, not the right of individual citizens.I will note that a Google search turned up liberalswithguns.com that says a lot of liberals are pro individual citizens having guns for the sake of national defense. I didn't have time to find any more liberal web sites, because my search almost exclusively turned up anti-liberal web sites that I of course can't use to know the average liberal mind. Can you explain this to me, too? I'm pretty sure I've heard real news reports about manger scenes being protested. Do you just mean that they ought to be legal but not displayed in publicly owned buildings? Isn't the manger scene about as directly promoting of one religion as things get?I'm not for characterizing liberals as anything, and I think the OP is ridiculous. I read "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," and I found that Al Franken and I mostly agree on the issues he covers, so please don't take this as some sort of attack. I'm really just asking two questions.

In a sane world, I would honestly think that anyone who read the 2nd amendment would walk away with that in mind. But that's not how the Supreme Court seems to read it, so... *shrug* I'd have to see the stories in question to say anything about them. Was it just a protest by people who didn't like it, or a bonafide attempt to outlaw a tacky fiberglass assortment of Jesus-themed yard gnomes? There's a difference. Basically, but even in these cases, I think there's degrees. For instance, I have no problem whatsoever with a judge putting a manger scene in his office, but have a big problem when the court erects a manger scene in the courthouse lobby, with state money.Either way, a pretty wild difference from NJ's view of the world. Don't sweat it; didn't see anything like that in your post.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Hurbert H Humphrey, Senator and US Vice-President, known as "Mr. Liberal" said:

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion