Slashdot Mirror

Let's look it up....http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

        "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Since there is no "Right to Travel" listed earlier in the Constitution, it is not explicitly denied here.

Unlike most codes of law in the United States, the Constitution does not generally apply to individual citizens. Rather, the Constitution defines and codifies the Federal government, and is generally accepted to be the limit of Federal and State powers and responsibilities.

Finally, I remember that when I was younger (mind you, this was back in the 1970's), having to provide identification and being subjected to searches before being able to travel was the scope of godless Communists and tinpot dictators.

That we have come to this point is a sad commentary on the United States. That many others not only accept this but actively defend it is even more disappointing.

Do you really believe that a culture/tribe/village/group can develop such stupid rituals to deal with the dead and diseased and survive to this day? Do you really think that `primitive' people don't know anything about quarantaine or other measures against infectious diseases? Do you really think that a group of people that has just seen some of their own die in a horrible way will quietly slink off to meditate on their sins rather than seek (quite possibly rough) justice for this? But you're not one of the RFSP, right?

If they remain isolated enough, yes.

A lot of tribes that remain isolated in Africa and even South America this day and age. They aren't exposed to a lot of diseases that we carry.

Beyond this, because formal education is limited or non-existent in parts of Africa like Liberia a lot of them end up getting their education from lay preachers (Islam and Christianity are the biggest offenders). This would likely be the real story you're looking for. A preacher will have said that the plague is a curse from god and it's being spread by the godless foreign doctors (because the doctors follow the disease but precede the deaths, it's easy to sell this). Lack of education combined with religious fervor and the fear that accompanies an outbreak of a deadly disease and even people who are ordinarily rational and intelligent will do stupid things.

It's probably going to get worse too before the outbreak burns itself out.

The double irony is that a lot of climate change deniers are the same people who stockpile weapons in case of the collapse of civilization. It's almost as if you bloody well want to spend your last days futilely defending the dwindling supplies in your bunker.

In fact, I think that is part of the problem. The religious right seems to believe that the end of days is upon us so they're just going to bunker down and hold the fort until Jesus comes to save us. They don't want to accept climate change because doing so might require them to do something about it, which is a pointless exercise in their mind (and highly damaging to their standard of living). If God wants the planet to burn, it's going to burn and only God can save us. The guns are there to protect them from the godless masses until their day of vindication comes.

I love that people get offended when people tell them they can do the right thing. I don't do it JUST to lord it over people, even though that is an added bonus. I'm here to tell people that it's OKAY to not follow the crowd, and yes even godless atheists can decide to not take drugs despite there being no divine command to do so.

Consider that I am not offended, but just letting you know that unless you want to come off as pompous, rigid, and condescending you might be having a different effect than you think.

I'm at least as atheistic as you are, it is irrelevent to the conversation.

But I also understand that you seem to have a really rigid outlook on this. I know a woman who was in a car accident. Spent a month in the hospital, and came out addicted to pain killers. Quite a conundrum when you have to wean yourself, but as you do, the pain returns.

My wife takes prescription pain killers for a collapsed disc. Kind of keeps her able to function. But If she goes off them, I have no doubt there will be minor withdrawal symptoms, along with the return of constant pain. Where do these people fit in your rigid ideology? Would you refuse to take painkillers if your pain level was at 10?

Or do you figure they are just just following this mythical "crowd" you refer to?

Even these Silicon Valley people, they aren't taking drugs to escape, they are taking them to try to get their jobs done. Addiction through work ethic. And that is mildly insane. But pathetically so.

I don't do it JUST to lord it over people, even though that is an added bonus.

DId something happen to you in the past that makes you so bitter? Your lordliness doesn't get you much, merely causes people to either laugh at you or feel pity (more so than your desired annoyance).

I've done both now, having at first laughed at your pomposity and rigidity, but now seeing this remark, I feel kind of sorry for you.

I love that people get offended when people tell them they can do the right thing. I don't do it JUST to lord it over people, even though that is an added bonus. I'm here to tell people that it's OKAY to not follow the crowd, and yes even godless atheists can decide to not take drugs despite there being no divine command to do so.

Canada has a right wing government, the libertarians teamed up with the moral police types so they have to pretend that they aren't spending massive amounts of money on surveillance to half their base and that the only spending they're doing is to put the godless in jail to the other half of their base. It's easier to please the libertarians if they can hide how much surveillance they're using to enlarge our prison system and keep tabs on political undesirables such as the opposition parties..

And there were "Commernists hiding under every beadstead" in the 50's.

Except that he was at least partly right. That doesn't justify his actions, of course, but he was by no means a pure paranoic.

Your neo-Macarthyism is based in pure irrational hate/bias.

Wouldn't I have to be a right-winger to be able to be a "neo-Macarthyist"? I know I get labeled as a "godless commie" by Americans. Also, my opposition to ludicrous fairy tales with no foundation in reality hardly seems irrational. It's a waste of time at best times, and oftentimes it gives some people stupid ideas.

Anyone who believes that the government shouldn't be spying on and controlling every aspect of their lives is a godless communist with sympathies for the old Soviet regime. :)

We Americans want to feel big and tough from our couches. We want to see our military kick the shit out some other "evil" country from the comforts of our homes, sitting on our fat asses in front of the big China made screen TV.

Science? Space? That's for the godless "elites".

Spending money on idiotic wars is fine.

Spending a small fraction of that on space is a "waste".

We Americans are like my alcoholic uncle. Bitches to his kids to turn off the lights when not in the room - even the fish tank has to be turned off - but he spends his money on booze and doesn't see the problem.

If we spent the resources that were litteraly blown up in wars on space, we would have been to Mars and have all that technology and prestige of having sent people to Mars.

Nope, we're known for killing people, being bullies, and for being a bunch of scientifically illiterate Bible thumping morons.

Fuck! I'm cranky this morning!

However, if I needed "little blue pills" and was employed at Hobby Lobby, they would be more than happy to provide them to me. They also see nothing wrong in investing in the contraception companies in their 401K. Apparently, making money off of "godless abortion pills" is perfectly fine religiously.

Wouldn't the abortion pills they're against in this case not count as contraception? I mean.. isn't the point of contraception to stop conception?

The only reason I can see to try to avoid the name "abortion pill" is the social stigma, but that can be worked on. (imitation of kang's voice) "Abortions for all!"

They also object to the IUD. Something that is used for non-birth control medical reasons. And regardless..
What if they object to HIV treatment because only the gays and drug users get that and God wants them to die?
What if they won't pay for prenatal care and births of unmarried woman?
No STD treatments because they are godless sluts?
No treatment for a head trauma you got when you fell down the steps of the (wrong) church?
No treatment at all for anything because they only believe in faith healing.

It's simple, as an individual you have every right to be as big of a bigot and idiot that you want.
But IF you incorporate, becoming some kind of limited liability legal entity you no longer have the right to push your PERSONAL beliefs.
Humans can have religious beliefs, corporations CAN NOT.

And one of those types are IUDs. My wife has one of those to regulate endometriosis which can be quite painful to deal with. Her doctors recommended using it instead of the normal birth control pills (which she has tried in the past) and it works. The fact that this works as birth control is a side benefit. (We already have 2 kids and don't want/can't afford any more.) However, this ruling would give an employer the right to say "we object to this because of 'religious reasons' so we're not going to cover it in your employer provided health care." Then, if we wanted this device to manage my wife's medical condition, we'd be forced to pay full cost out of pocket.

However, if I needed "little blue pills" and was employed at Hobby Lobby, they would be more than happy to provide them to me. They also see nothing wrong in investing in the contraception companies in their 401K. Apparently, making money off of "godless abortion pills" is perfectly fine religiously.

Ahh, the tolerance of progressive fascists for conflicting ideas is so refreshing! Praise Gaia!

https://www.princeton.edu/~pro...

...and you they said you couldn't be courteous or civilized!

Actually, your spermatozoa or ova are also alive, and so are some of the skin cells you are shedding, so it doesn't follow that life begins at conception.

There is no such consensus. In fact it is completely wrong. Both the egg and the sperm are alive before conception. The question is actually a different one, but you are likely unable to even understand it: When does a human being begin to exist.

You are stupid, dishonest, disgusting. Go kill yourself, which is about the only way you could contribute something positive.

your mom gave me some extra cash...

You can't have it both ways - either humans are part of the system or above the system - which is it?

With a relatively low (Sub-1M) UID, I expect a better troll from you. How much did you pay for it?

I don't get you proglodytes. You hate people, hence your support of abortion (murder) even though there is a "scientific consensus" that life begins at conception. So the earth warms and kills off a few billion people and in 500 years the earth recovers and reverts back to the mean. What is the problem? So a few species go extinct, new species will form ala Darwinism. Get over it, global warming is natural, people came from evolution so if we caused a change, it is "natural" and the "natural" system will fix it.

You can't have it both ways - either humans are part of the system or above the system - which is it?

Right now what I wrote sounds extreme.

10 years from now you will all then understand I saw the future you did not yet see, and you will call me prescient and wish those in power had done what I suggested.

^^ Proof that belief in a deity does not confer any kind of morality.